Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 34

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

W.  Bush  returned  to  the  same  Islamic  Center  to  implore 
his  fellow  Americans—Muslims  and  non-Muslims  alike— 
to  remember  during  their  time  of  grief  that  “[t]he  face  of 
terror is not the true faith of Islam,” and that America is 
“a  great  country  because  we  share  the  same  values  of 
respect  and  dignity  and  human  worth.”    Public  Papers  of
the Presidents, George W. Bush, Vol. 2, Sept. 17, 2001, p. 
1121  (2001).  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Federal 
Government and the Presidents who have carried its laws 
into  effect  have—from  the  Nation’s  earliest  days—
performed unevenly in living up to those inspiring words.

Plaintiffs  argue  that  this  President’s  words  strike  at
fundamental  standards  of  respect  and  tolerance,  in  viola-
tion  of  our  constitutional  tradition.  But  the  issue  before 
us  is  not  whether  to  denounce  the  statements.  It  is  in-
stead  the  significance  of  those  statements  in  reviewing  a 
Presidential  directive,  neutral  on  its  face,  addressing  a
matter  within  the  core  of  executive  responsibility.    In 
doing  so,  we  must  consider  not  only  the  statements  of  a 
particular  President,  but  also  the  authority  of  the  Presi-
dency itself.

The case before us differs in numerous respects from the
conventional  Establishment  Clause  claim.
  Unlike  the 
typical  suit  involving  religious  displays  or  school  prayer, 
plaintiffs  seek  to  invalidate  a  national  security  directive
regulating the entry of aliens abroad.  Their claim accord-
ingly  raises  a  number  of  delicate  issues  regarding  the
scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof.
The  Proclamation,  moreover,  is  facially  neutral  toward
religion.  Plaintiffs  therefore  ask  the  Court  to  probe  the 
sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by refer-
ence  to  extrinsic  statements—many  of  which  were  made
before the President took the oath of office.  These various 
aspects  of  plaintiffs’  challenge  inform  our  standard  of 
review.