Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

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

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Government’s  asserted  national-security 
justifications.
Even before being sworn into office, then-candidate Trump
stated  that  “Islam  hates  us,”  App.  399,  warned  that 
“[w]e’re  having  problems  with  the  Muslims,  and  we’re 
having  problems  with  Muslims  coming  into  the  country,” 
id.,  at  121,  promised  to  enact  a  “total  and  complete  shut­
down of Muslims entering the United States,” id., at 119, 
and instructed one of his advisers to find a “lega[l ]” way to
enact a Muslim ban, id., at 125.3  The President continued 
to make similar statements well after his inauguration, as
detailed above, see supra, at 6–10. 

Moreover,  despite  several  opportunities  to  do  so,  Presi­
dent  Trump  has  never  disavowed  any  of  his  prior  state­
ments  about  Islam.4    Instead,  he  has  continued  to  make 

—————— 

3 The  Government  urges  us  to  disregard  the  President’s  campaign 
statements.  Brief for Petitioners 66–67.  But nothing in our precedent 
supports  that  blinkered  approach.    To  the  contrary,  courts  must  con­
sider  “the  historical  background  of  the  decision  under  challenge,  the
specific  series  of  events  leading  to  the  enactment  or  official  policy  in
question,  and  the  legislative  or  administrative  history.”  Church  of 
Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 540 (1993) (opinion 
of  KENNEDY,  J.).    Moreover,  President  Trump  and  his  advisers  have 
repeatedly  acknowledged  that  the  Proclamation  and  its  predecessors 
are  an  outgrowth  of  the  President’s  campaign  statements.    For  exam
ple,  just  last  November,  the  Deputy  White  House  Press  Secretary
reminded  the  media  that  the  Proclamation  addresses  “issues”  the 
President  has  been  talking  about  “for  years,”  including  on  “the  cam­
paign trail.”  IRAP II, 883 F. 3d 233, 267 (CA4 2018).  In any case, as
the Fourth Circuit correctly recognized, even without relying on any of
the  President’s  campaign  statements,  a  reasonable  observer  would 
conclude  that  the  Proclamation  was  enacted  for  the  impermissible 
purpose of disfavoring Muslims.  Id., at 266, 268. 

4 At  oral  argument,  the  Solicitor  General  asserted  that  President 
Trump “made crystal-clear on September 25 that he had no intention of 
imposing  the  Muslim  ban”  and  “has  praised  Islam  as  one  of  the  great 
countries  [sic]  of  the  world.”    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  81.  Because  the  record 
contained no evidence of any such statement made on September 25th, 
however,  the  Solicitor  General  clarified  after  oral  argument  that  he
actually  intended  to  refer  to  President  Trump’s  statement  during  a 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
­