Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 59.0

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

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

threat.  And  that  fact  would  help  to  rebut  the  First 
Amendment claim that the Proclamation rests upon anti-
Muslim bias rather than security need.  Finally, of course,
the  very  fact  that  Muslims  from  those  countries  would
enter  the  United  States  (under  Proclamation-provided
exemptions  and  waivers)  would  help  to  show  the  same
thing.

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Government  is  not  applying
the system of exemptions and waivers that the Proclama-
tion  contains,  then  its  argument  for  the  Proclamation’s
lawfulness  becomes  significantly  weaker.    For  one  thing,
the  relevant  precedents—those  of  Presidents  Carter  and 
Reagan—would  bear  far  less  resemblance  to  the  present 
Proclamation.  Indeed,  one  might  ask,  if  those  two  Presi-
dents  thought  a  case-by-case  exemption  system  appropri-
ate,  what  is  different  about  present  circumstances  that 
would justify that system’s absence? 

For  another  thing,  the  relevant  statute  requires  that 
there  be  “find[ings]”  that  the  grant  of  visas  to  excluded
persons  would  be  “detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the
United  States.”  §1182(f ).    Yet  there  would  be  no  such 
findings  in  respect  to  those  for  whom  the  Proclamation 
itself  provides  case-by-case  examination  (followed  by  the
grant of a visa in appropriate cases).

And,  perhaps  most  importantly,  if  the  Government  is
not  applying  the  Proclamation’s  exemption  and  waiver 
system,  the  claim  that  the  Proclamation  is  a  “Muslim
ban,”  rather  than  a  “security-based”  ban,  becomes  much 
stronger.  How  could  the  Government  successfully  claim
that  the  Proclamation  rests  on  security  needs  if  it  is  ex-
cluding  Muslims  who  satisfy  the  Proclamation’s  own 
terms?  At  the  same  time,  denying  visas  to  Muslims  who
meet the Proclamation’s own security terms would support
the  view  that  the  Government  excludes  them  for  reasons 
based upon their religion. 

Unfortunately  there  is  evidence  that  supports  the  sec-