Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 32

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

27 

Opinion of the Court 

“foreordained.”  Relying  on  Establishment  Clause  prece-
dents  concerning  laws  and  policies  applied  domestically,
plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the Proclama-
tion was religious animus and that the President’s stated
concerns  about  vetting  protocols  and  national  security
were  but  pretexts  for  discriminating  against  Muslims.
Brief for Respondents 69–73.

At  the  heart  of  plaintiffs’  case  is  a  series  of  statements 
by  the  President  and  his  advisers  casting  doubt  on  the
official objective of the Proclamation.  For example, while 
a candidate on the campaign trail, the President published 
a  “Statement  on  Preventing  Muslim  Immigration”  that
called  for  a  “total  and  complete  shutdown  of  Muslims 
entering the United States until our country’s representa-
tives  can  figure  out  what  is  going  on.”  App.  158.  That 
statement  remained  on  his  campaign  website  until  May 
2017.  Id., at 130–131.  Then-candidate Trump also stated 
that “Islam hates us” and asserted that the United States 
was  “having  problems  with  Muslims  coming  into  the
country.”  Id., at 120–121, 159.  Shortly after being elected,
when  asked  whether  violence  in  Europe  had  affected
his  plans  to  “ban  Muslim  immigration,”  the  President 
replied, “You know my plans.  All along, I’ve been proven 
to be right.”  Id., at 123. 

One  week  after  his  inauguration,  the  President  issued 
EO–1.  In  a  television  interview,  one  of  the  President’s 
campaign  advisers  explained  that  when  the  President 
“first  announced  it,  he  said,  ‘Muslim  ban.’    He  called  me 
up.  He  said,  ‘Put  a  commission  together.    Show  me  the 
right way to do it legally.’ ”  Id., at 125.  The adviser said 
he assembled a group of Members of Congress and lawyers
that  “focused  on,  instead  of  religion,  danger. . . .  [The
order]  is  based  on  places  where  there  [is]  substantial 
evidence that people are sending terrorists into our coun-
try.”  Id., at 229. 

Plaintiffs  also  note  that  after  issuing  EO–2  to  replace