Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

Opinion of the Court 

Plaintiffs  argue  that  the  Proclamation  is  not  a  valid 
exercise  of  the  President’s  authority  under  the  INA.    In 
their view, §1182(f ) confers only a residual power to tem-
porarily  halt  the  entry  of  a  discrete  group  of  aliens  en-
gaged in harmful conduct.  They also assert that the Proc-
lamation violates another provision of the INA—8 U. S. C. 
§1152(a)(1)(A)—because  it  discriminates  on  the  basis  of 
nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas. 

By  its  plain  language,  §1182(f )  grants  the  President 
broad  discretion  to  suspend  the  entry  of  aliens  into  the 
United  States.  The  President  lawfully  exercised  that 
discretion  based  on  his  findings—following  a  worldwide, 
multi-agency  review—that  entry  of  the  covered  aliens 
would be detrimental to the national interest.  And plain-
tiffs’  attempts  to  identify  a  conflict  with  other  provisions
in the INA, and their appeal to the statute’s purposes and
legislative  history,  fail  to  overcome  the  clear  statutory
language. 

The text of §1182(f ) states: 

A 

“Whenever  the  President  finds  that  the  entry  of  any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States 
would  be  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States,  he  may  by  proclamation,  and  for  such  period 
as  he  shall  deem  necessary,  suspend  the  entry  of  all 
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonim-
migrants,  or  impose  on  the  entry  of  aliens  any  re-
strictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 

By its terms, §1182(f ) exudes deference to the President 
in every clause.  It entrusts to the President the decisions 
whether  and  when  to  suspend  entry  (“[w]henever  [he] 
finds  that  the  entry”  of  aliens  “would  be  detrimental”  to 

—————— 

tion.  Brief for Petitioners 32–33.