Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U. S. 155 (1993). 
The  Court  in  that  case,  however,  went  on  to  consider  on 
the merits a statutory claim like the one before us without 
addressing  the  issue  of  reviewability.    The  Government 
does  not  argue  that  the  doctrine  of  consular  nonreview- 
ability goes to the Court’s jurisdiction, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 
13,  nor  does  it  point  to  any  provision  of  the  INA  that 
expressly  strips  the  Court  of  jurisdiction  over  plaintiffs’ 
claims,  see  Sebelius  v.  Auburn  Regional  Medical  Center, 
568  U. S.  145,  153  (2013)  (requiring  Congress  to  “clearly
state[]”  that  a  statutory  provision  is  jurisdictional).    As  a 
result,  we  may  assume  without  deciding  that  plaintiffs’ 
statutory claims are reviewable, notwithstanding consular
nonreviewability  or  any  other  statutory  nonreviewability 
issue, and we proceed on that basis. 

III 
The  INA  establishes  numerous  grounds  on  which  an
alien abroad may be inadmissible to the United States and 
ineligible  for  a  visa.  See,  e.g.,  8  U. S. C.  §§1182(a)(1) 
(health-related grounds), (a)(2) (criminal history), (a)(3)(B)
(terrorist  activities),  (a)(3)(C)  (foreign  policy  grounds). 
Congress has also delegated to the President authority to
suspend  or  restrict  the  entry  of  aliens  in  certain  circum-
stances.  The  principal  source  of  that  authority,  §1182(f),
enables the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or 
any  class  of  aliens”  whenever  he  “finds”  that  their  entry 
“would  be  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States.”1 

—————— 

1 The  President  also  invoked  his  power  under  8  U. S. C.  §1185(a)(1),
which  grants  the  President  authority  to  adopt  “reasonable  rules,
regulations,  and  orders”  governing  entry  or  removal  of  aliens,  “subject
to such limitations and exceptions as [he] may prescribe.”  Because this 
provision  “substantially  overlap[s]”  with  §1182(f ),  we  agree  with  the 
Government  that  we  “need  not  resolve  . . .  the  precise  relationship
between  the  two  statutes”  in  evaluating  the  validity  of  the  Proclama-