Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 37

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

ditionally quote President Trump’s 2017 statement compar-
ing undocumented immigrants to “animals” responsible for 
“the  drugs,  the  gangs,  the  cartels,  the  crisis  of  smuggling 
and trafficking, [and] MS13.”  298 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1314 
(ND  Cal.  2018)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The 
plurality brushes these aside as “unilluminating,” “remote 
in  time,”  and  having  been  “made  in  unrelated  contexts.” 
Ante, at 28. 

But  “nothing  in  our  precedent  supports  [the]  blinkered 
approach” of disregarding any of the campaign statements 
as remote in time from later-enacted policies.  Trump v. Ha-
waii,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___,  n.  3  (2018)  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  dis-
senting) (slip op., at 11, n. 3).  Nor did any of the statements 
arise in unrelated contexts.  They bear on unlawful migra-
tion  from  Mexico—a  keystone  of  President  Trump’s  cam-
paign and a policy priority of his administration—and, ac-
cording to respondents, were an animating force behind the
rescission of DACA.  Cf. ibid. (noting that Presidential Proc-
lamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45161 (2017), which barred
entry  of  individuals  from  several  Muslim-majority  coun-
tries, was an outgrowth of the President’s campaign state-
ments about Muslims).  Taken together, “the words of the
President”  help  to  “create  the  strong  perception”  that  the 
rescission  decision  was  “contaminated  by  impermissible
discriminatory  animus.”  585  U. S.,  at  ___  (opinion  of 
SOTOMAYOR, J.) (slip op., at 13).  This perception provides
respondents with grounds to litigate their equal protection 
claims further. 

Next,  the  plurality  minimizes  the  disproportionate  im-
pact of the rescission decision on Latinos after considering 
this point in isolation.  Ante, at 28 (“Were this fact sufficient 
to  state  a  claim,  virtually  any  generally  applicable  immi-
gration  policy  could  be  challenged  on  equal  protection
grounds”).  But  the  impact  of  the  policy  decision  must  be 
viewed in the context of the President’s public statements 
on  and  off  the  campaign  trail.  At  the  motion-to-dismiss