Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 47

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–965 
_________________ 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HAWAII, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2018] 

THOMAS, J., concurring. 
I join the Court’s opinion, which highlights just a few of
the many  problems with the plaintiffs’ claims.  There are 
several more.  Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judi-
cially enforceable limits that constrain the President.  See 
Webster  v.  Doe,  486  U. S.  592,  600  (1988).    Nor  could  it, 
since  the  President  has  inherent  authority  to  exclude
aliens  from  the  country. 
See  United  States  ex  rel. 
Knauff v. Shaughnessy,  338  U. S.  537,  542–543  (1950); 
accord,  Sessions  v.  Dimaya,  584  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2018) 
(THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 13–14).  Further, the 
Establishment  Clause  does  not  create  an  individual  right 
to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views 
as religious or antireligious.  See Town of Greece v. Gallo-
way,  572  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2014)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in
part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 6); Elk Grove 
Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 52–53 (2004) 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    The  plaintiffs
cannot  raise  any  other  First  Amendment  claim,  since  the 
alleged  religious  discrimination  in  this  case  was  directed
at aliens abroad.  See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 
494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990).  And, even on its own terms, the 
plaintiffs’  proffered  evidence  of  anti-Muslim  discrimina-
tion is unpersuasive.

Merits  aside,  I  write  separately  to  address  the  remedy