Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 58

2 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

students, children, and numerous others.  There are likely 
many  such  persons,  perhaps  in  the  thousands.    And  I 
believe it appropriate to take account of their Proclamation-
granted  status  when  considering  the  Proclamation’s 
lawfulness.  The Solicitor General asked us to consider the 
Proclamation  “as”  it  is  “written”  and  “as”  it  is  “applied,” 
waivers and exemptions included.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 38.  He
warned  us  against  considering  the  Proclamation’s  lawful-
ness “on the hypothetical situation that [the Proclamation] 
is what it isn’t,” ibid., while telling us that its waiver and 
exemption provisions mean what they say: The Proclama-
tion  does  not  exclude  individuals  from  the  United  States 
“if they meet the criteria” for a waiver or exemption.  Id., 
at 33. 

On  the  one  hand,  if  the  Government  is  applying  the
exemption  and  waiver  provisions  as  written,  then  its
argument  for  the  Proclamation’s  lawfulness  is  strength-
ened.  For  one  thing,  the  Proclamation  then  resembles 
more closely the two important Presidential precedents on
point,  President  Carter’s  Iran  order  and  President 
Reagan’s  Cuba  proclamation,  both  of  which  contained 
similar categories of persons authorized to obtain case-by-
case  exemptions.  Ante,  at  36–37;  Exec.  Order  No.  12172, 
44 Fed. Reg. 67947 (1979), as amended by Exec. Order No.
12206,  45  Fed.  Reg.  24101  (1980);  Presidential  Proclama-
tion  No.  5517,  51  Fed.  Reg.  30470  (1986).    For  another 
thing, the Proclamation then follows more closely the basic
statutory  scheme,  which  provides  for  strict  case-by-case
scrutiny  of  applications.    It  would  deviate  from  that  sys-
tem,  not  across  the  board,  but  where  circumstances  may
require that deviation.

Further, since the case-by-case exemptions and waivers
apply  without  regard  to  the  individual’s  religion,  applica-
tion  of  that  system  would  help  make  clear  that  the  Proc-
lamation  does  not  deny  visas  to  numerous  Muslim  indi-
viduals  (from  those  countries)  who  do  not  pose  a  security