SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE ) UNITED STATES, ET AL., ) Petitioners, v. ) ) No. 17-965 HAWAII, ET AL., ) Respondents. ) ----------------------------------- Pages: 1 through 81 Place: Washington, D.C. Date: April 25, 2018 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 www.hrccourtreporters.com Official - Subject to Final Review 1 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE ) 4 UNITED STATES, ET AL., ) 5 Petitioners, 6 7 v. ) No. 17-965 HAWAII, ET AL., 8 9 ) ) Respondents. ) ----------------------------------- 10 11 Washington, D.C. 12 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 13 14 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 15 argument before the Supreme Court of the United 16 States at 10:02 a.m. 17 18 APPEARANCES: 19 GEN. NOEL J. FRANCISCO, Solicitor General, 20 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; 21 on behalf of the Petitioners. 22 23 NEAL K. KATYAL, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Respondents. 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 2 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF: 3 GEN. NOEL J. FRANCISCO 4 On behalf of the Petitioners 5 ORAL ARGUMENT OF: 6 NEAL K. KATYAL, ESQ. 7 On behalf of Respondents 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF: 9 GEN. NOEL J. FRANCISCO 10 On behalf of Petitioners 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation PAGE: 3 38 75 Official - Subject to Final Review 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 (10:02 a.m.) CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear 4 argument today in Case 17-965, Trump, President 5 of the -- Donald Trump, President of the United 6 States, versus Hawaii. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mr. Francisco. ORAL ARGUMENT OF GENERAL NOEL J. FRANCISCO ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS GENERAL FRANCISCO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: After a worldwide multi-agency review, 13 the President's acting Homeland Security 14 Secretary recommended that he adopt entry 15 restrictions on countries that failed to 16 provide the minimum baseline of information 17 needed to vet their nationals. 18 The proclamation adopts those 19 recommendations. It omits the vast majority of 20 the world, including the vast majority of the 21 Muslim world, because they met the baseline. 22 It now applies to only seven countries that 23 fall below that baseline or had other problems, 24 and it exerts diplomatic pressure on those 25 countries to provide the needed information and Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 4 1 to protect the country until they do. 2 The proclamation reflects a foreign 3 policy and national security judgment that 4 falls well within the President's power under 5 1182(f) and has been successful, which is why 6 the country of Chad was recently dropped from 7 the list. 8 9 But it -JUSTICE GINSBURG: mentioned 1182(f). You -- you And the worrisome thing 10 about this is that the President acts; Congress 11 is the one responsible for making the laws 12 about immigration. 13 one of the briefs that we read 1182(f) to allow 14 the President to suspend entry but only for a 15 period of time long enough for Congress to say 16 yea or nay. 17 It has been suggested in GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, yes, 18 1182(f) is a broad and flexible power in a 19 narrow area. 20 don't need to explore those outer limits 21 because the proclamation's meant to help 22 implement the INA by making sure that we have 23 the minimum level of information needed to 24 determine if aliens are admissible under the 25 INA. Here, however, I think that you Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 5 1 In terms of a time limit, I think 2 that's simply inconsistent with the text of the 3 statute and inconsistent with virtually every 4 1182(f) proclamation ever issued. 5 have a fair -- 6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Here, we I'm sorry, Mr. -- 7 General. I thought that Congress had looked at 8 the situation and created a statutory system 9 that addressed the very concern the President 10 is expressing. 11 waivers if you -- if you can meet the three 12 criteria that this special committee of the 13 President looked at, and if you don't, you have 14 to have a very heightened, extreme vetting 15 process. 16 and suggested its parameters. 17 Congress said you can have visa And it created that vetting process More importantly, it took terrorist 18 countries and designated which ones supported 19 terrorism and added another layer of review and 20 said, if you're a national from one of those 21 countries or you have visited one of those 22 countries in the recent past, you also have to 23 get the permission of the Attorney General and 24 the Secretary of State to -- to affirm that you 25 are not a danger to the U.S. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 6 1 GENERAL FRANCISCO: And -- 2 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So I -- but what I 3 see the President doing here is saying, I'm 4 going to add more to the limits that Congress 5 set -- 6 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. 7 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- and to what 8 Congress said was enough. 9 President get the authority to do more than 10 Where does a Congress has already decided is adequate? 11 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Well, there are -- 12 there's a lot packed into your question, Your 13 Honor, and so let me try to unpack it a little 14 bit. 15 I think the basic answer is that 16 1182(f) gives the President the authority to 17 impose restrictions in addition to those set 18 forth in the INA, but to go to the statutes 19 that Your Honor was -- 20 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But -- it might, 22 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right, but -- 23 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- on the very 21 24 25 but -- grounds that Congress has already looked at? GENERAL FRANCISCO: And that's exactly Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 7 1 what I was going to address next, Your Honor. 2 The Visa Waiver Program provides a special 3 benefit to our closest allies and some of the 4 safest countries in the world. 5 Visa Waiver Program nor any of the other 6 statutes that they cite addresses whether we 7 get the minimum level of information needed to 8 determine the admissibility of individuals 9 coming in from some of the riskiest countries 10 11 Neither the in the world. And 1182(f) then does give the 12 President the authority to supplement that 13 vetting system. 14 system is essentially determined by the 15 executive branch. 16 branch to set it up. 17 branch to maintain it. 18 executive branch to constantly improve it. 19 After all, the whole vetting It's up to the executive It's up to the executive And it's up to the And, here, you have something that 20 really is at the core of 1182(f) since its main 21 purpose is to help implement the INA by making 22 sure we have that minimum baseline of 23 information. 24 And if you look at the proclamation, 25 what we're talking about is very basic pieces Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 8 1 of information. 2 minimum. 3 information? 4 history? 5 real-time basis? 6 Not the ideal, but the Are they reporting terrorism history Are they reporting criminal Do they cooperate with us on a And I could give you an example to 7 help illustrate how this works. Suppose that 8 Jane Doe shows up at our border with a valid 9 visa, but after that visa was issued, pursuant 10 to the entire process, Your Honor, that you 11 described, her home country learns that she is 12 associated with a terrorist organization but 13 doesn't tell us. 14 Once she shows up at the border, we 15 cannot make an intelligent determination as to 16 whether or not she's admissible under the INA. 17 And that's what this proclamation really does 18 go to: 19 baseline of information needed to determine 20 admissibility. 21 Making sure we have that minimum And so the proclamation really does 22 reflect a -- it is different than past 23 proclamations, but it is typical in the sense 24 that it seeks to identify harmful conduct that 25 a foreign government is engaging in, and then Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 9 1 it imposes sanctions in order to pressure that 2 government to change. 3 That's what President Carter did with 4 respect to Iran, what President Reagan did with 5 respect to Cuba. 6 the failure to provide us with that minimum 7 baseline of information. 8 Here, the harmful conduct is JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Can you represent 9 that no other country that -- that fails all 10 three of the criteria was excluded from this 11 list? 12 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Well, Your Honor, 13 what I can represent is that the -- the -- the 14 analysis was holistic. It wasn't if you failed 15 any one or the others. It was if your overall 16 score was sufficiently low. 17 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So given -- 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: So I can represent 19 that all of the countries listed in the 20 proclamation are the same countries that fell 21 below the baseline, with the exception of 22 Somalia, which the proclamation makes quite 23 clear, and the exception of Iraq, which did 24 fall below -- below the baseline but was not 25 subjected to sanctions. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 10 1 And I think that this reflects the 2 tailored nature of this proclamation and the 3 fact that it was meant to impose tailored 4 pressure on these countries while also taking 5 into account other types of national security 6 and foreign policy considerations to try to 7 move those countries across the line into 8 acceptability, which we've now seen has been 9 successful, as with the case of the government 10 of Iraq -- of Chad. 11 JUSTICE KENNEDY: In fact, if you 12 compare this proclamation to the Reagan and the 13 Carter proclamations, which I think were one or 14 two sentences, this is longer than any 15 proclamation that -- that I've seen in this 16 particular area. 17 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Honor, the most detailed 1182 -- 19 20 This is, Your JUSTICE KENNEDY: I'd say "longer detail" -- 21 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 22 JUSTICE KENNEDY: 23 24 25 Yes. -- is -- is a better word. GENERAL FRANCISCO: Yes. This is the more detailed 1182(f) proclamation in history. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 11 1 It's not -- 2 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General, the 3 proclamations by Reagan and Carter, however, 4 were not as broad as this one. 5 6 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, they were almost as broad, but -- 7 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And -- and -- 8 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- to complete my 9 answer to Justice Kennedy's question, this is 10 the most detailed proclamation ever issued in 11 American history. 12 this covers more countries than either 13 President Reagan's or President Carter's 14 covered. Yes, Your Honor, to be sure, But it's -- 15 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And more -- and 16 more immigrants, because Carter's only applied 17 to certain immigrants, not to all. 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: President Carter's 19 actually applied to all immigrants but then had 20 an exception much like the waiver provision 21 here for national interests and humanitarian 22 concerns. 23 actually very similar to the proclamation here. 24 And -- 25 So I think President Carter's was CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is your Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 12 1 consular non-reviewability argument -- is that 2 a jurisdictional argument? 3 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, I -- 4 yes, I think it is a jurisdictional argument. 5 And that's why I don't think you really should 6 address any of these issues. 7 The basic rule is that the exclusion 8 of aliens is a political act imbued with 9 foreign policy and national security concerns 10 and, therefore, subject to -- 11 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I -- I thought 12 in Sale, that we decided that this -- this 13 wasn't jurisdictional or at least decided the 14 merits despite the non-reviewability argument 15 that the government made. 16 GENERAL FRANCISCO: I think the second 17 thing that you just said, Mr. Chief Justice, is 18 accurate. 19 reviewability issue at all. 20 think it's precedential one way or another. 21 The Court didn't address the And so we don't CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Was the -- was 22 the argument raised in that case by the 23 government? 24 25 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Honor. Yes, it was, Your I could -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 13 1 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So -- so it's 2 an argument we would have been required to 3 address if it were, in fact, jurisdictional? 4 GENERAL FRANCISCO: I think so. And 5 so I think one way you could understand it is 6 that it doesn't go to Article III jurisdiction, 7 though it is a justiciability argument and we 8 would urge this Court to accept it because we 9 think it's correct. 10 But even if you don't think that it's 11 correct, we think that this proclamation 12 satisfies the merits because it does fall well 13 within the power of the President under 14 1182(f). 15 JUSTICE BREYER: 16 JUSTICE KAGAN: 17 If you're about -May I turn, General, to the constitutional claims in this case? 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 19 JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes, Your Honor. And your principal 20 response to the Establishment Clause claim is 21 to cite Mandel and to say that, once the 22 government comes forward with a legitimate 23 reason -- of course, national security is the 24 most important reason one can come forward with 25 -- the game is over, essentially. And I just Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 14 1 want to press on that a little bit. 2 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 3 JUSTICE KAGAN: Sure. So, first, I want to 4 ask whether that means -- you started off by 5 talking a lot about the process of this 6 proclamation. 7 argument would apply irrespective of what 8 process was used. 9 But I -- I take it that that In other words, you would have made 10 the same Mandel argument to the first executive 11 order in this case, or would you not? 12 GENERAL FRANCISCO: We would have made 13 a Mandel argument, but it is far stronger given 14 that you have the process and substance upon 15 which this proclamation was based, because 16 whatever you -- 17 JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I guess I wonder 18 why that is, just because, when I read Mandel, 19 I don't see anything about process or you have 20 to meet a certain kind of bar. 21 is kind of you state a reason and this Court 22 stops. 23 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Mandel really And I think that 24 that is right, but I think that when you, in 25 addition to that, have the extensive worldwide Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 15 1 process that we had that resulted in a 2 cabinet-level recommendation, that applied a 3 neutral baseline to every country in the world, 4 concluded that almost all the world, including 5 almost all of the Muslim-majority world passed 6 that baseline, but a tiny number of countries 7 didn't, I think that whether you apply Mandel 8 or whether you apply McCreary, that makes the 9 constitutional case in our favor overwhelmingly 10 11 strong. It's -JUSTICE KAGAN: So let me give you a 12 hypothetical, and it's just -- you know, I 13 think that there are ways to distinguish Mandel 14 in this case, but -- but -- but, you know, just 15 in terms of thinking about what Mandel really 16 forecloses here. 17 GENERAL FRANCISCO: And I -- because 18 Mandel, there are only two cases in the area, 19 and it's -- it's hard to understand the full 20 contours of it. 21 JUSTICE KAGAN: I agree. So this is a 22 hypothetical that you've heard a variant of 23 before that the government has, at any rate, 24 but I want to just give you. 25 So let's say in some future time a -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 16 1 a President gets elected who is a vehement 2 anti-Semite and says all kinds of denigrating 3 comments about Jews and provokes a lot of 4 resentment and hatred over the course of a 5 campaign and in his presidency and, in the 6 course of that, asks his staff or his cabinet 7 members to issue a proc -- to issue 8 recommendations so that he can issue a 9 proclamation of this kind, and they dot all the 10 11 i's and they cross all the t's. And what emerges -- and, again, in the 12 context of this virulent anti-Semitism -- what 13 emerges is a proclamation that says no one 14 shall enter from Israel. 15 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 16 JUSTICE KAGAN: 17 18 Right. Do you say Mandel puts an end to judicial review of that set of facts? GENERAL FRANCISCO: No, Your Honor, I 19 don't say Mandel puts an end to it, but I do 20 say that, in that context, Mandel would be the 21 starting point of the analysis, because it does 22 involve the exclusion of aliens, which is where 23 Mandel applies. 24 25 If his cabinet -- and this is a very tough hypothetical that we've dealt with Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 17 1 throughout -- but if his cabinet were to 2 actually come to him and say, Mr. President, 3 there is honestly a national security risk here 4 and you have to act, I think then that the 5 President would be allowed to follow that 6 advice even if in his private heart of hearts 7 he also harbored animus. 8 9 10 JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, the question is -GENERAL FRANCISCO: I would also 11 suggest, though -- if I could finish that, Your 12 Honor -- that I think it would be very 13 difficult for that to even satisfy Mandel 14 rational basis scrutiny. 15 the rational was. 16 be one of the country's closest allies in the 17 war against terrorism, it's not clear to me 18 that you actually could satisfy -- I'd need to know what Given that Israel happens to 19 JUSTICE KAGAN: Well -- 20 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- Mandel's 21 rational basis standard on that, unless it 22 truly were based -- 23 JUSTICE KAGAN: 24 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 25 Yes. -- on a cabinet-level recommendation that was about Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 18 1 national security. 2 JUSTICE KAGAN: General, I'm -- let's 3 -- this is a out-of-the-box kind of President 4 in my hypothetical. And -- 5 (Laughter.) 6 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 7 don't have those, Your Honor. 8 9 We -- we -- we JUSTICE KAGAN: And -- and, you know, he thinks that there are good diplomatic 10 reasons, and there might -- who knows what the 11 future holds, that there might be good 12 diplomatic reasons to put pressure on Israel or 13 to say we want Israel to vote a certain way in 14 the U.N. and this is a way to better our 15 diplomatic hand, and so this is what he does. 16 And -- and who knows what his heart of 17 hearts is. I mean, I take that point. 18 question is not really what his heart of hearts 19 is. 20 observers to think -- The question is what are reasonable 21 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 22 JUSTICE KAGAN: 23 But the Right. -- given this context, in which this hypothetical President -- 24 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 25 JUSTICE KAGAN: Sure. -- is making virulent Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 19 1 anti-Semitic comments. 2 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. And, Your 3 Honor, it's a tough hypothetical, but it's why 4 I also think that this is a relatively easy 5 case, because we're willing to even assume for 6 the sake of argument that you consider all of 7 the statements. 8 9 And we're even willing to assume for the sake of argument, though we think that it's 10 wrong, that you applied some kind of domestic 11 establishment clause jurisprudence, because 12 we're quite confident that, given the process 13 and substance that form the basis of this 14 proclamation, no matter what standard you 15 apply, this proclamation is constitutional. 16 Since we don't have the extreme 17 hypothetical that you're suggesting, Your 18 Honor, we do have a multi-agency worldwide 19 review and a cabinet-level recommendation that 20 applied a neutral baseline. 21 done just by the cabinet secretaries but by the 22 agencies to every country in the world and 23 concluded -- 24 25 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And this wasn't Mr. General, you just -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 20 1 JUSTICE KENNEDY: If -- if you have 2 that extreme hypothetical, would that present a 3 free exercise or an Establishment Clause claim 4 or both? 5 GENERAL FRANCISCO: It could 6 definitely present a free exercise clause 7 challenge, Your Honor, just as you had a free 8 speech type claim in the Mandel case. 9 And there would be people who could 10 bring that claim and who could potentially 11 succeed on that claim. 12 JUSTICE KENNEDY: And -- and the 13 people that could bring that claim, I assume, 14 were relatives of people that were excluded, 15 father, son? 16 17 18 19 20 GENERAL FRANCISCO: potentially. On free exercise, I think all -- JUSTICE KENNEDY: Yeah, what about a university? GENERAL FRANCISCO: I think a 21 university could bring a free speech-type claim 22 under Mandel, much -- 23 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: 24 Establishment Clause claim? 25 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Why not an And -- and -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 21 1 because, Your Honor, and the reason why I think 2 they haven't pursued those types of claims is 3 because I don't think they would possibly 4 support the types of nationwide injunction that 5 they're asking for. 6 Your Honor, the reason why I don't 7 think that they could bring an Establishment 8 Clause claim is because the proclamation 9 doesn't actually apply to the Respondents. 10 only applies to aliens abroad who have no 11 constitutional right to enter. 12 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It No, but the claim 13 is that it -- that the proclamation is in place 14 because of a dislike of a particular religion. 15 And I thought the Establishment Clause at its 16 heart is that we cannot be anything but neutral 17 with respect to religion or its practice. 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: That is true, Your 19 Honor, but as the Valley Forge decision makes 20 clear, not everybody has standing to challenge 21 that negative message injury. 22 plaintiffs in Valley Forge would have had 23 standing to challenge the land transfer from 24 the government to the Christian college on the 25 ground that it sent a pro-Christian or Otherwise, the Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 22 1 2 anti-atheist message. That -- JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But these people 3 are saying that that negative religious 4 attitude is stopping them -- 5 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. 6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- from doing 7 things that they would otherwise be able to do: 8 To associate with scholars from these 9 countries, to bring in students, to have family 10 members join them. 11 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. 12 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Which is one of 13 14 the purposes of the INS. GENERAL FRANCISCO: And -- and that's 15 where they might have free exercise or free 16 speech claims along the type that Justice 17 Kennedy suggested -- 18 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, but I -- 19 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- but which 20 couldn't support a nationwide injunction. 21 don't think that that gives them an 22 Establishment Clause claim when the 23 proclamation doesn't actually apply to them 24 because -- 25 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I General, today, Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 23 1 can we go back to something that's been 2 bothering me here, which is -- and it was 3 argued in a case this week about the unitary 4 executive theory, which basically says the 5 President is at the head, I think -- I'm 6 summarizing in an incomplete way -- 7 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Uh-huh. 8 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- but that the 9 President is the head of the executive branch 10 and that he should have, for those who are in 11 the extreme of this theory or -- or on one end 12 of the theory -- 13 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Uh-huh. 14 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- not extreme, 15 that he can hire or fire anyone he wants and 16 that he can put in place whatever policy he 17 wants. 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Uh-huh. 19 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: If we take Justice 20 Kagan's hypothetical President -- 21 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Uh-huh. 22 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- who basically 23 says to his review committee, I want to keep 24 out Jews -- 25 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Uh-huh. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 24 1 2 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: way. -- period; find a 3 That's their charge. So, in that situation, why would the 4 actions of the committee, whatever this is, 5 Executive Committee, not be subject to great 6 suspicion and to thorough review -- which 7 actually wasn't completely -- 8 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Uh-huh. 9 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- done here -- 10 given that they are responsible to the 11 executive -- 12 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. 13 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- and they've 14 been told what the outcome of their 15 deliberations must be? 16 17 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Sure. And I have two responses to that, Your Honor. 18 The first is that the President's 19 cabinet, just like all of us here, is 20 duty-bound to protect and defend the 21 Constitution. 22 cabinet member were given that order, that 23 cabinet member would refuse to comply or resign 24 in the face of a plainly unconstitutional 25 order. So I would expect that if any So I think that would be the initial Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 25 1 check. 2 Secondly, if you had an extreme 3 scenario where all of that broke down, then, if 4 the President actually did make that 5 statement -- I want to keep out a particular 6 race or a particular religion, no matter 7 what -- that would undermine the facial 8 legitimacy of the action, even under the Mandel 9 standard. 10 Here, however, you don't have anything 11 like that. 12 its job through the agencies, where they ask 13 the agencies to construct and apply this 14 neutral standard to every country in the world, 15 including every Muslim country. 16 that the vast majority of the world, including 17 the vast majority of the Muslim world, was just 18 fine, but there were problems with a small 19 number of countries and so imposed pressure, 20 recommended pressure, to help move those 21 countries across the line. 22 Rather, you have the cabinet doing JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: They concluded General, the 23 problem is that I don't see that that material 24 was reviewed by the judges below, by the Ninth 25 Circuit or the Fourth Circuit judges. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 26 1 I thought that the government had kept 2 confidential and refused to share, either with 3 the litigants or the courts, exactly what was 4 done, how, what the evaluation and how -- 5 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. 6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- it was applied 7 to all those countries in the world. 8 9 I understand some of the confidentiality that might concern you, but if 10 the backdrop is the way that Justice Kagan 11 described it -- 12 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. 13 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- that -- that 14 heated -- 15 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Well, I -- yeah -- 16 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- anti-Semitic 17 background, don't you think that once you get 18 through the Mandel preliminary stage, that you 19 need an independent arbiter to look at all of 20 that to ensure the process, in fact, is what is 21 claimed it was? 22 23 24 25 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Well, Your Honor, a couple of responses to that. First of all, I think that the proclamation is very transparent and lays out Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 27 1 in great detail both the process and the 2 substance upon which the proclamation is based. 3 And I think that under the duty of 4 regularity or good faith, or whatever you want 5 to call it, that one branch of the government 6 owes to another coequal branch of the 7 government, there is a very strong presumption 8 that what is being set out there is the truth. 9 JUSTICE KAGAN: You -- you said 10 something earlier, General, I want to make sure 11 that I got it right. 12 the President had said we don't want Muslims 13 coming into this country -- 14 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 15 JUSTICE KAGAN: You said if at the time Uh-huh. -- that that would 16 undermine the proclamation. 17 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 18 JUSTICE KAGAN: 19 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 20 JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes. Did I get you right? Yes. So I -- I think, you 21 know, honestly, the difference here then seems 22 to be is everything that the President said 23 effectively that? 24 25 GENERAL FRANCISCO: two issues, Your Honor. I think there are There are the -- the Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 28 1 first is whether you can ever consider things 2 like campaign statements. 3 of the view that campaign statements are made 4 by a private citizen before he takes the oath 5 of office and before, under the Opinions Clause 6 of the Constitution, receives the advice of his 7 cabinet, and that those are constitutionally 8 significant acts that mark the fundamental 9 transformation from being a private citizen to And we are very much 10 the embodiment of the executive branch. 11 that those statements should be out of bounds. 12 But for -- 13 JUSTICE KENNEDY: So Suppose you have a 14 local mayor and, as a candidate, he makes 15 vituperative hate -- hateful statements, he's 16 elected, and on day two, he takes acts that are 17 consistent with those hateful statements. 18 That's -- whatever he said in the campaign is 19 irrelevant? 20 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your -- Your 21 Honor, if he takes the same oath -- 22 JUSTICE KENNEDY: 23 whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant? 24 25 You would say GENERAL FRANCISCO: things. I would say two And that was the -- and the second Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 29 1 thing is the point I was about to turn to. 2 would say yes, because we do think that oath 3 marks a fundamental transformation, but I would 4 also say here it doesn't matter, because, here, 5 the statements that they principally rely on 6 don't actually address the meaning of the 7 proclamation itself. 8 This is not a so-called Muslim ban. 9 If it were, it would be the most ineffective I 10 Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine 11 since not only does it exclude the vast 12 majority of the Muslim world, it also omits 13 three Muslim-majority countries that were 14 covered by past orders, including Iraq, Chad, 15 and Sudan. 16 And so this order is what it purports 17 to be and what its process and substance 18 confirms that it is. 19 based on a multi-agency worldwide review that 20 applied neutral criteria all across the world 21 and concluded, under those neutral criteria, 22 most of the world was fine, but a small part of 23 it failed to provide us with that minimum 24 baseline of information, the minimum, not the 25 ideal, the bare minimum -- terrorism history, It is an order that is Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 30 1 criminal history -- that we need to protect the 2 country. 3 JUSTICE BREYER: All right. Can -- 4 can I ask a more -- I did read, I think, almost 5 all the 80 briefs. 6 do -- 7 8 And now your time -- what CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: worry. 9 Yeah, don't Please go ahead. JUSTICE BREYER: All 10 right. 11 some were repetitive, not too many. 12 think I know the basic arguments, but there's 13 one question I'm left with and it starts with 14 an assumption, which I think you share, but I 15 want to be sure. 16 All right. All right. Almost 80, and I think I -And I All right. I noticed that the Carter order and 17 the Reagan order both had case-by-case 18 exceptions. 19 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 20 JUSTICE BREYER: Uh-huh. And I looked at this 21 order, and this has case-by-case exceptions. 22 And then it says -- you know, it says 23 case-by-case waivers may be appropriate in 24 individual circumstances, such as, giving some 25 examples, the following. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 31 1 And then they have to be no 2 terrorists. Well, that's the law anyway. 3 they -- they have to be in the interests of the 4 United States. 5 hardship, which the only time the word 6 "hardship" appears in the immigration laws, it 7 says "extreme hardship." And there can't be undue 8 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 9 JUSTICE BREYER: 10 And Uh-huh. So "undue" must be less than "extreme." 11 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 12 JUSTICE BREYER: Uh-huh. Okay? So I'm -- then 13 they have a list: people with foreign contacts 14 previously established, business reasons, 15 they've been here studying or other long-term 16 activity, they want to visit or reside with a 17 close family member, they have a disease or 18 something that they need -- 19 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 20 JUSTICE BREYER: 21 they -- previously been employed. 22 are about five other things. -- treatment for, 23 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 24 JUSTICE BREYER: 25 Uh-huh. And there Yeah. All right. Focus on that class of individuals. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 32 1 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 2 JUSTICE BREYER: Uh-huh. Now, in countries -- 3 150 million people, all together, there must be 4 quite a few who have -- do fall within that 5 class. 6 So -GENERAL FRANCISCO: Well, yes, Your 7 Honor, but there's only a small number of 8 people that seek to come into our country. 9 10 JUSTICE BREYER: Well, that's what I'm asking about. 11 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 12 JUSTICE BREYER: 13 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 14 JUSTICE BREYER: Yeah. You see? Yeah. That's now -- you -- 15 you would think -- now, as far as we're 16 concerned, if they fall within that class, 17 there -- there's no reason given here why they 18 should be excluded, other than the -- the 19 normal processes? 20 21 GENERAL FRANCISCO: responses, Your Honor. 22 JUSTICE BREYER: 23 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 24 25 Well, a couple of What? First, in terms of the numbers -JUSTICE BREYER: I'm not asking about Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 33 1 the numbers. 2 3 GENERAL FRANCISCO: asking -- 4 5 JUSTICE BREYER: I want to ask about -- 6 7 Oh, oh, you're not GENERAL FRANCISCO: So -- so, in terms of the reason -- 8 JUSTICE BREYER: Yeah. 9 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- they should be 10 excluded, one of the principal purposes of the 11 proclamation is to exert diplomatic pressure on 12 governments in order to get them to change and 13 provide us with the information -- 14 JUSTICE BREYER: 15 should be excluded? 16 17 GENERAL FRANCISCO: JUSTICE BREYER: Not if they meet the criteria. 20 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 21 JUSTICE BREYER: 22 23 Not if they meet the criteria for the -- 18 19 So you think they -- for the waiver. Okay. Okay. So there's -GENERAL FRANCISCO: That's why we have 24 -- that's why we have the waiver. 25 JUSTICE BREYER: That's -- that's -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 34 1 that's what I thought you would say. 2 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 3 JUSTICE BREYER: 4 my question. Then I get -- can ask Sorry. 5 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 6 JUSTICE BREYER: 7 Yes. I want to be sure we're the same wavelength. 8 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 9 (Laughter.) 10 Yeah. JUSTICE BREYER: Yes. Okay. Now, falling 11 within that class, here is the problem. 12 seems to me that there are probably a 13 significant number of such people. 14 read the briefs, you think, hey, there's the 15 business community complaining, there's the 16 academic community, there were 46 scholars at 17 Harvard, there -- there are families in the 18 Lisa Blatt brief, you know, that -- that they 19 say we were trying to get medical treatment and 20 nobody told us about this, and -- and they've 21 only admitted two and there's supposed to be 22 guidance, and -- 23 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 24 JUSTICE BREYER: 25 It And you That's not true. -- you haven't put in the guidance, and -- and -- and the most there Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 35 1 are is 100. And so there is my question. 2 you have done the same thing that the Reagan 3 people did and the Carter people did, then it 4 might be -- I'm not expressing a definite 5 opinion -- but, well, you've got the same thing 6 here, but if this is, as one brief says, just 7 window dressing and they never apply it -- 8 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 9 JUSTICE BREYER: If Right. -- then you have 10 something new and different going well beyond 11 what President Reagan did. 12 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 13 JUSTICE BREYER: Sure. Okay. So I want to 14 know how do I find out -- how do I find out 15 when there is not that information in the 16 brief, where do we have to -- can we have 17 another hearing? 18 say, look, the government, of course, thinks 19 this isn't window dressing -- Do we send it back? 20 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 21 JUSTICE BREYER: Do we Right. -- but the other side 22 says there are only two people, no notice, 23 nobody knows. 24 25 GENERAL FRANCISCO: So, Your Honor, two -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 36 1 2 JUSTICE BREYER: There are people in Yemen, there are people in Somalia -- 3 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 4 JUSTICE BREYER: 5 Yeah. -- decent people. Business -- you see my point? 6 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 7 JUSTICE BREYER: 8 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 9 JUSTICE BREYER: 10 Yes. What's the answer? And two responses. Yes. GENERAL FRANCISCO: Our reply brief 11 has our most -- most current number on waivers, 12 and I believe the number at page 17, footnote 13 -- well, it's -- it's over 400. 14 remember the exact statement. 15 16 JUSTICE BREYER: I can't All right. That's 400 out of 150 million. 17 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 18 JUSTICE BREYER: And then -- And -- and is it well 19 publicized in these countries that they know 20 all they have to do is go to the visa office 21 and say: 22 exception? 23 I understand the thing, I want an GENERAL FRANCISCO: No, Your Honor, 24 and I have two -- two responses -- 25 JUSTICE BREYER: Yeah. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 37 1 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- to that. One 2 is I don't know how well publicized it is, but 3 I suspect that people understand how to get it. 4 My second principal response is, 5 though, that, frankly, in terms of the 6 legality, I think that the waiver is not 7 necessary, although it is a very good thing, 8 which is why -- 9 10 JUSTICE BREYER: Not necessary. There -- there you have President Reagan -- 11 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- which is why 12 most -- which is why most governments don't -- 13 which is why it's -- it's a good thing, which 14 is why most of these proclamations often have 15 them. 16 But there's nothing in -- 17 JUSTICE BREYER: So you want me to consider -- 18 19 Okay. GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- the law that actually requires it. 20 JUSTICE BREYER: That's what you want. 21 You want me to consider the lawfulness of this 22 order on the assumption that there is no 23 waiver. 24 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 25 JUSTICE BREYER: I don't -- Which is not what -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 38 1 not what President Reagan did, not what -- not 2 what President Carter did, and if you go 3 through every action that Congress took, 4 waiver, waiver, waiver, possibility, 5 case-by-case, case-by-case here, that's the -- 6 that's the -- 7 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Right. The answer 8 to my -- your question, Your Honor, is, no, I 9 don't want you to consider the proclamation on 10 the -- on the hypothetical situation that it is 11 what it isn't, but I do think that the 12 proclamation as written and as applied falls 13 well within the President's authority under 14 1182(f). 15 Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. 16 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 17 General. Thank you, We will afford you rebuttal time. 18 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 19 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 20 ORAL ARGUMENT OF NEAL K. KATYAL 21 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 22 23 24 25 MR. KATYAL: Thank you. Mr. Katyal. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: The executive order is unlawful for three reasons: It conflicts with Congress's Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 39 1 policy choices. 2 nationality discrimination, something you never 3 heard my friend talk about. 4 the First Amendment. 5 It defies the bar on And it violates Congress has already specified a 6 three-part solution to the very same problem 7 the order addresses: 8 countries that don't cooperate with the United 9 States in vetting, including "state sponsors of 10 terrorism and countries that provide inaccurate 11 information." 12 Aliens seeking entry from First, aliens have to go through the 13 individualized vetting process with the burden 14 placed on them. 15 Second, when Congress became aware 16 that some countries were failing to satisfy the 17 very same baseline criteria you just heard 18 about, that the order uses, Congress rejected a 19 ban. 20 cooperated, they'd get extra credit, a track -- 21 faster track for admission. 22 big sticks like nationality bans failed. 23 Instead, it used carrots. When countries Legislation to use And, third, Congress was aware 24 circumstances could change on the ground, so it 25 required reporting to them so it could change Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 40 1 the law. 2 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, let's 3 take big sticks fail. 4 intelligence agencies go to the President and 5 say, we have 100 percent solid information that 6 on a particular day 20 nationals from Syria are 7 going to enter the United States with chemical 8 and biological weapons. 9 of thousands of Americans. 10 Let's suppose that the They could kill tens In that situation, could the President 11 ban the entry of Syrian nationals on that one 12 day? 13 MR. KATYAL: He could for two reasons. 14 There's two different arguments. 15 nationality discrimination ban, 1152, and then 16 there's whether or not this comports with 17 Congress's policy judgments. 18 There's the And with respect to both, I think it 19 would. 20 discrimination for the reasons Judge Sentelle 21 said in LAVAS, when you have an emergency 22 fast-moving situation like the Syria example 23 you're saying. 24 25 It wouldn't be nationality CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: stop, interrupt you there. Well, just to I mean, what if Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 41 1 it's a week? 2 now? 3 is. What if it's a week a month from That's what the intelligence information 4 In other words, I'm trying to -- 5 MR. KATYAL: 6 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Right. -- respond to 7 your point that it has to be an immediate 8 decision. 9 MR. KATYAL: Yeah. So I think, you 10 know, this Court's dealt with that in 11 Youngstown and Hamdan and said, look, you know, 12 the President's going to get a pass absolutely 13 on, you know, what he says the emergency is. 14 But the ultimate question is, can you go to 15 Congress and get any legislative impediment 16 removed? 17 And that he can have deference about. But here we are 460 days on -- later, 18 Mr. Chief Justice. 19 legislation about this. 20 that hypothetical, we'll concede the 21 hypothetical. 22 He's never even introduced So we're so far from CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, imagine 23 -- imagine, if you can, that Congress is unable 24 to act when the President asked for 25 legislation. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 42 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. KATYAL: 3 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Right. And someone 4 introduces a bill saying let's authorize -- 5 first of all, the President may have qualms 6 about sharing that absolute intelligence 7 broadly, but let's say there's a bill 8 introduced to say let's authorize the President 9 and there's a bill introduced to say let's 10 11 block the President, and neither bill moves. MR. KATYAL: Absolutely. We 12 understand the President will have residual 13 authority to keep the country safe. 14 here, though, is that Congress has thought 15 about this exact problem, including, you know 16 -- you know, about -- there -- there's only one 17 problem he's identifying, which is countries 18 not cooperating. 19 Our point He's not talking about people coming 20 in or something like that, like your 21 hypothetical. 22 Congress has said here's how we deal with it. 23 We deal with it with the individualized vetting 24 system, which pushes all the burdens on a 25 person coming in. And with respect to that, That's 1361. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 43 1 You've got to show biometric ID under 2 the statute. 3 interview, if there's any risk that the person 4 is from a country that's a state sponsor of 5 terrorism, like your hypothetical or anything 6 else. 7 You've got to have an in-person So Congress has really said in a 8 robust way, here is how we would deal with it. 9 And to the extent countries aren't cooperating, 10 11 we offer carrots. Congress rejected exactly what they're 12 trying to propose here, which is a flat 13 nationality ban. 14 force of our argument lies with respect to the 15 first point, which is this is countermanding 16 Congress's policy judgments. 17 18 19 20 And that's where I think the My friend on the other side actually in his brief -JUSTICE ALITO: Congress did act. It enacted 1182(f). 21 MR. KATYAL: 22 JUSTICE ALITO: 23 24 25 Well, Congress did -- Correct. Why doesn't this fall squarely within the language of 1182(f)? MR. KATYAL: For -- for -- we have both textual reasons that it's not a class, for Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 44 1 reasons Justice Breyer was talking about. 2 not perpetuated -- it's perpetual, like Justice 3 Ginsburg was talking about. 4 there's a much bigger point, Justice Alito, 5 which is -- 6 JUSTICE ALITO: It's But we think Well, maybe you could 7 talk about the text. It's not a class? 8 Doesn't 11 -- doesn't 1182(f) say whenever the 9 President finds that the entry of any aliens -- 10 MR. KATYAL: Correct. 11 JUSTICE ALITO: -- or any class of 12 aliens. 13 really see why people who are nationals of a 14 particular country don't constitute a class. 15 What about any aliens? 16 So put class aside, although I don't MR. KATYAL: Right. So we think it is 17 any -- because the power in 1182 is so broad 18 and sweeping and does allow the President to 19 supplement what Congress has done, we think 20 that you have to -- you have to be careful and 21 read limit -- you have to read it just the way 22 you read every other statute to say, how do we 23 harmonize that broad text of 1182(f) with the 24 rest of the INA? 25 And our point in our briefs, which I Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 45 1 don't think you heard an answer to, is, if you 2 accept their idea that the President has such a 3 sweeping power, he could end, for example, 4 family -- the family preference system and 5 impose, you know, and end so-called chain 6 migration or anything like that. 7 -- countermand any of the provisions of the INA 8 and turn it into a line item veto. 9 He could do So, for that reason, we think there 10 has to be some limit. 11 Court's dealt with in, you know, the tobacco 12 case. 13 That's something this JUSTICE ALITO: Well, does this 14 proclamation do anything like that? 15 proclamation purport to establish a new 16 permanent immigration policy for the United 17 States? 18 MR. KATYAL: Does this Absolutely, Your Honor. 19 This is a perpetual policy that bans. It does 20 exactly what Congress in 1965 said you can't 21 do. 22 fine-grained reticulated judgment from 2001, 23 2015, and several other times, which is to say, 24 instead of these flat bans, we're going to have 25 -- we're going to balance foreign policy And it countermands Congress's Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 46 1 considerations, economic considerations, like 2 the U.S. companies brief, humanitarian, image 3 of the United States views, all of that 4 together, and said we won't do the flat ban. 5 Instead, we're going to have a much 6 more fine-grained approach with individualized 7 vetting and carrots for the countries that 8 don't disagree -- that don't cooperate. 9 10 JUSTICE ALITO: What is your basis for saying that it is perpetual? 11 MR. KATYAL: Well, there's nothing in 12 the order that ends it. 13 friend say, oh, that would doom all executive 14 orders. 15 And you heard my But that's not true. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Half of these -- I thought it had to 16 be reexamined every 180 days? 17 MR. KATYAL: No, that's not what it 18 says. 19 come in at 180 days, and nothing happens at the 20 end of the report. 21 22 It says there's a report that has to JUSTICE KENNEDY: indicates there will be a reassessment? 23 MR. KATYAL: 24 JUSTICE KENNEDY: 25 Well, that -- that Well, in -And then the -- and -- and the President has continuing discretion? Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 47 1 MR. KATYAL: Justice Kennedy, this 2 argument wouldn't be there if there was 3 anything about reassessment, the way there are 4 in about half the orders, including the Cuba 5 order, which says it sunsets once the crisis 6 ends. There's nothing like that in this. 7 And it's just like a reporting 8 requirement to Congress in which Congress isn't 9 necessarily required to do anything. 10 has statutes like that all the time. 11 This is that. Congress And that's why this is 12 unlike any other executive order. 13 back and look at all 43 executive orders that 14 Presidents have issued, none of them have even 15 arguably countermanded Congress's judgment in 16 the area. 17 They've all been supplements. 18 If you go They've all been consistent. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, the statute 19 says first that -- that -- that 1182 for such 20 period as he deems necessary, and he can have 21 continuing supervision over whether it's still 22 necessary. 23 MR. KATYAL: Again, we wouldn't have a 24 problem with that if it was tailored to a 25 crisis, it says it sunsets, and then, you know, Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 48 1 could be re-upped or something like that. 2 That's not what this says. 3 perpetual problem. 4 JUSTICE KENNEDY: This is about a So you want the 5 President to say, I'm convinced that in six 6 months we're going to have a safe world? 7 MR. KATYAL: Well -- well -- well, no, 8 Justice Kennedy, that's not our argument. Our 9 argument is, here, the President is identifying 10 something that is a perennial problem. Our 11 brief says it goes back 100 years, you know, 12 when the Soviet Union was around, we don't have 13 countries that cooperate with us in vetting. 14 And the solution has always been from 15 Congress not to have a flat ban but instead to 16 have a fine-grained vetting system to balance 17 these considerations. 18 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What if the 19 military advisors tell the President that, in 20 their judgment, the President ought to order a 21 strike, an air strike against Syria, and the 22 President says, well -- does that mean he can't 23 because you would regard that as discrimination 24 against a majority Muslim country? 25 MR. KATYAL: Absolutely not. Heritage Reporting Corporation There's Official - Subject to Final Review 49 1 nothing to do with the text of the statute. 2 The 1152 statute's about discrimination and the 3 "issuance of visas." 4 And that's all that -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, under 5 1182(f), you would say that there's no problem 6 under that provision? 7 MR. KATYAL: Well, under 1182, as I 8 understand, it was a strike. 9 think there's any immigration issue in your 10 hypothetical. 11 Mr. Chief Justice. 12 And so I don't I might be misunderstanding it, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, any type 13 of targeted action that would have a impact on 14 the Muslim population. 15 MR. KATYAL: Absolutely. We think the 16 President has wide authorities to do things 17 that have impacts on the Muslim population. 18 Take the laptop ban that was introduced -- 19 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why under your 20 theory wouldn't that constitute or the argument 21 would be that that's discrimination under your 22 Establishment Clause argument -- 23 MR. KATYAL: 24 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 25 Oh. -- that that's discrimination on the basis of faith because he Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 50 1 has said in the past, if you accept the -- 2 MR. KATYAL: 3 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 4 arguments, that he -- he is anti-Muslim? 5 MR. KATYAL: Yeah. -- accept the Not at all, Your Honor, 6 and no President has run afoul of this, you 7 know, and that's because, here, the President 8 and his advisors have directly tied this policy 9 to those statements. And the red brief at page 10 70, I think, is the greatest illustration of 11 that. 12 That's a constitutional claim. And I 13 certainly want to get there, but before doing 14 so, I just want to make very clear the 15 consequences of their position for the INA is 16 that the President can take a wrecking ball to 17 the statute and countermand Congress's 18 fine-grained judgments, that he can never -- 19 JUSTICE GORSUCH: 20 JUSTICE KAGAN: 21 JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, Mr. Katyal -You might think -Mr. Katyal, if I 22 might on -- on the statutory question before we 23 leave it. 24 assumption that we can reach the merits, but 25 the government makes the argument, for example, We've been proceeding so far on the Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 51 1 that aliens who are removed from this country 2 have to bring their claims personally and third 3 parties can't vindicate those rights of aliens 4 being -- who are present in this country, and 5 asks the question why it should be that third 6 persons should be able to assert the rights of 7 aliens who are not present in this country. 8 What's the answer to that? 9 MR. KATYAL: Well, several. This is 10 not a third-party case. 11 States citizens bringing this challenge in a 12 state -- 13 JUSTICE GORSUCH: 14 MR. KATYAL: 15 JUSTICE GORSUCH: These are United 16 17 Oh behalf of -- -- of the United States. -- aliens not present in the country? MR. KATYAL: Well, but they are 18 directly -- they are directly harmed 19 themselves. 20 Not just the State of Hawaii, whose university 21 is directly impacted, but let's just take, for 22 example, the Alomari -- Mr. Alomari, the 23 10-year-old in the PARS Equality brief, Justice 24 Breyer, that you were referring to. 25 10-year-old daughter in Yemen who is -- who's Let me just give you one example. This is a Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 52 1 trying to come here because she has cerebral 2 palsy. 3 JUSTICE GORSUCH: I understand that, 4 but those arguments don't work with respect to 5 aliens present in the country. 6 work for aliens who are not present in the 7 country? 8 MR. KATYAL: 9 JUSTICE GORSUCH: 10 So why do they Because I -Those very same arguments would not succeed. 11 MR. KATYAL: Well -- 12 JUSTICE GORSUCH: I think you'd 13 concede that they wouldn't succeed for aliens 14 present -- 15 MR. KATYAL: Right. And they don't 16 succeed because there you have a better 17 plaintiff might not be willing to bring them in 18 the United States, and that's why the court, 19 you know, says no third party. 20 these folks are directly impacted. 21 But, here, And the most important thing to say is 22 Sale answers this. You heard my friend concede 23 Sale was jurisdictional, the issues in Sale. 24 That's how they briefed it up. 25 just described it. That's how he This Court had exactly that Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 53 1 situation, United States plaintiffs, and it 2 reached the merits. 3 Our statutory point to you is that if 4 you accept this order, you're giving the 5 President a power no President in 100 years has 6 exercised, an executive proclamation that 7 countermands Congress's policy judgments. 8 has zero examples to say that when Congress has 9 stepped into the space and solved the exact He 10 problem, that the President can then come in 11 and say: 12 No, I want a different solution. If you do that, you're -- it's not 13 just family preferences that you're allowing 14 him to get rid of; you'd get rid of all sorts 15 of even small things in the Code or big things, 16 like there's a preference for specialty 17 occupations like software engineers in the INA. 18 The President could say: 19 such I'm going to ban software engineers from 20 going to California or something like that 21 under that sweeping 1182 power. 22 JUSTICE KAGAN: The economics are I -- I guess the 23 question, though, Mr. Katyal, is maybe you're 24 entirely right that 1182(f) needs to have some 25 limits to prevent the President from doing Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 54 1 something that's completely contrary to another 2 section of the statute. 3 But you're suggesting, well, the 4 President can't do anything that's not 5 contemplated by the rest of the statute. 6 MR. KATYAL: That is not our argument. 7 JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So then I want 8 to know what are you saying this is directly 9 contrary to? Because it seems to me you would 10 have to point to some kind of clear and direct 11 conflict between what the President is doing 12 and another statutory provision. 13 MR. KATYAL: So our view is that the 14 President can supplement; he just can't 15 supplant. 16 Brown & Williamson case and the UARG greenhouse 17 gas, and Concepcion and Abilene Cotton, the 18 Savings Clause cases, all say there are three 19 things you look at. 20 It can't be like a direct contravention. 21 they say it's not a direct contravention in 22 their reply brief at page 19. 23 In this Court's decisions in the And it's not a flat bar. Even So the three things are, first, can 24 these two solutions coexist or not? 25 has Congress prescribed a reticulated Second, Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 55 1 comprehensive scheme? 2 there any other indication that Congress 3 considered the issue and went in a different 4 direction? 5 And, third, you know, is With respect to all of those for 6 here -- and, again, only this proclamation 7 satisfies all three of those factors -- 8 Congress has a comprehensive reticulated scheme 9 that deals with the exact single problem that 10 he's identified, which is countries not 11 cooperating. 12 solution of a flat ban. 13 example, to have the in-person visa requirement 14 -- visa interview, which is in 12 -- 15 1202(h)(2), which is for -- for people who come 16 from state sponsors of terrorism or who have a 17 "group" with a likelihood of providing 18 inaccurate information. 19 has to be an in-person interview for that. 20 It can't coexist with the It makes no sense, for Congress said there It doesn't make sense to say, well, 21 you're going to have a flat ban. It doesn't 22 make sense to have a Visa Waiver Program which 23 is all about countries that provide zero 24 information to the United States, state 25 sponsors of terrorism and the like, and say Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 56 1 we're going to give you a carrot and then say, 2 oh, no, forget about the Visa Waiver Program. 3 JUSTICE ALITO: Can -- can you imagine 4 any situation in which the threat of the 5 infiltration of the United States by terrorists 6 was so severe with respect to a particular 7 country that the other measures that you have 8 mentioned could be deemed by a President to be 9 inadequate? 10 MR. KATYAL: 11 JUSTICE ALITO: 12 13 Yes. You cannot imagine any such situation? MR. KATYAL: Yes, I can. And the 14 President would have a robust authority to deal 15 with that. 16 That is not our argument. JUSTICE KENNEDY: So -- And your argument is 17 that courts have the -- the duty to review 18 whether or not there is such a national 19 contingency; that's for the courts to do, not 20 the President? 21 MR. KATYAL: No. I think you have 22 wide deference, Justice Kennedy. It's exactly 23 what you said when you joined Justice Breyer's 24 opinion in Hamdan, which is, as long as -- you 25 know, Presidents have wide berth in this area, Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 57 1 but if -- you know, certainly, if there's any 2 sort of emergency that precludes it. 3 But when you have a statute that 4 considers the very same problem and there's 5 nothing new that they've identified in this 6 worldwide review process that Congress didn't 7 consider exactly the same types of things, it 8 is a perennial problem that countries do not 9 cooperate with the United States when it comes 10 to vetting. 11 You know, the -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But that's in 12 the abstract. I mean, they may have more -- 13 the President may have more particular problems 14 in light of particular situations developing on 15 the ground, and, yes, Congress addressed the 16 question of the adequacy of vetting, but those 17 questions arise in particular contexts. 18 And it seems to me a difficult 19 argument to say that Congress was prescient 20 enough to address any particular factual 21 situation that might arise. 22 MR. KATYAL: Well, that, again -- 23 that's, again, Mr. Chief Justice, not our 24 argument. 25 along like a virus that, you know, wiped out So, for example, if something came Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 58 1 the visa-processing software in all these other 2 countries, absolutely, the President would have 3 the power to do it, but here -- 4 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about -- 5 what about a change of administration in a 6 particular country -- 7 MR. KATYAL: 8 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 9 10 Yes. perhaps the vetting procedures are not going to be taken seriously? 11 MR. KATYAL: 12 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 13 14 -- in which Right. That Congress could not have anticipated? MR. KATYAL: Well, but, again, 15 Congress anticipated a country that is a "state 16 sponsor of terrorism" and even for -- with 17 respect to that, providing no information and 18 indeed fomenting against the United States, 19 Congress said, oh, we're not going to have a 20 nationality ban. 21 that and said we're going to have 22 individualized vetting and this Visa Waiver 23 Program carrot to try and deal with that, you 24 know, dangerous regime. 25 You know, they flatly banned Now, again, I can imagine an emergency Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 59 1 situation in which the President would have 2 even greater authority for that, but, here, we 3 are 460 days later and I would caution the 4 Court not to make a decision about the 5 emergency you're concerned about. 6 bracketed as it was in Youngstown, as it was in 7 Hamdan. This is so far from that. 8 9 That can be The text of 1152 is flatly violated here. It says there shall be no discrimination 10 on the basis of nationality with the issuance 11 of visas. 12 That is 39 percent of all the visas 13 this executive order covers. 14 part. 15 important part because immigrant visas are the 16 kind of heart about, you know, what the nation 17 becomes. 18 become part of our long-term polity. 19 executive order flatly contradicts that. 20 Now, if you accept his It's a large part. It's not a small And it is the most It's people who want to come here and This 21 interpretation -- he says, well, you know, 22 we're discriminating at the entry side, not at 23 the visa side. 24 the President the power to undo -- and he's 25 actually just done it -- he's undone the ban on If you do that, you are giving Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 60 1 nationality-based discrimination. 2 country quotas of zero for these countries at 3 the border. 4 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: He's imposed If your -- 5 your argument based on discrimination based on 6 the campaign statements, is there a statute of 7 -- the one that you do make based on the 8 campaign statements, is there a statute of 9 limitations on that, or is that a ban from 10 presidential findings for the rest of the 11 administration? 12 MR. KATYAL: So, Mr. Chief Justice, I 13 first want to be very clear about this. 14 point about 1152 and the discrimination has 15 nothing to do with any campaign statements or 16 anything else. 17 Our It's purely the text of the 18 proclamation, which is nationality-based 19 discrimination through and through. 20 Sentelle said you couldn't imagine a clearer 21 text than this. 22 Now -- 23 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 24 25 Judge And this is -- it violates it. My question was on the -MR. KATYAL: -- you're asking about Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 61 1 the First Amendment. 2 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 3 MR. KATYAL: Yes. I just want to make 4 absolutely clear that we're -- that's not -- 5 you know, you don't need to do any of that for 6 purposes of 1152. 7 39 percent of the most important part of the 8 executive order. 9 10 And that would knock out CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: of course -- 11 MR. KATYAL: 12 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 13 16 Yes. Now I'm getting --- was not on 1152. 14 15 My question, MR. KATYAL: Yes. I'm getting there. Okay. With respect to that, we don't think 17 -- we think that the test, as this Court has 18 said, a reasonable, objective observer viewing 19 all the statements, and we think, absolutely, 20 my friend is right, you shouldn't look to 21 campaign statements in general or stuff like 22 that, statements of a private citizen. 23 The only thing is, here, they 24 themselves, the President and his staff, have 25 rekindled exactly that. If you look at page 70 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 62 1 of our red brief, you have a very good example 2 of this. 3 After the executive order, this latest 4 executive order was promulgated, the President 5 tweeted these three virulent anti-Muslim 6 videos. 7 asked: What does this mean? 8 about? And the answer was: 9 spoken about exactly this in the proclamation. And then the press spokesman was What is this The President has 10 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 11 was whether or not the inhibition on the 12 ability to -- to enter one of the proclamations 13 applies forever? 14 MR. KATYAL: Right. My question No, I think the 15 President could have disclaimed -- you know, 16 easily moved away from all of these statements, 17 you know, but instead they embraced them. 18 That's the difference. 19 And so, absolutely, the President 20 would have wide berth to say that's a -- 21 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, if 22 tomorrow he issues a proclamation saying he's 23 disavowing all those statements, then the next 24 day he can reenter this proclamation? 25 MR. KATYAL: That's exactly what this Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 63 1 Court said in McCreary. 2 said, you know, the same policy can be 3 constitutional if said -- if promulgated by one 4 entity and not by another, depending on the 5 circumstances around it. 6 7 This Court in McCreary CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is your answer to my question yes? 8 MR. KATYAL: Yes. The answer is -- 9 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Tomorrow, he 10 issues a proclamation disavowing those 11 statements -- 12 13 MR. KATYAL: Absolutely. And that's a -- 14 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- then the 15 next day he could reenter this and your 16 discrimination argument would not be 17 applicable? 18 MR. KATYAL: And -- and -- and, Mr. 19 Chief Justice, that's exactly what I told the 20 Ninth Circuit in May. 21 that. 22 that's what a reasonable, objective observer -- The President didn't do That's what's -- that's -- you know, 23 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: 24 JUSTICE ALITO: 25 So if another -- Mr. Katyal, would any reasonable observer reading this proclamation, Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 64 1 with -- without taking into account statements, 2 think that this was a Muslim ban? 3 I mean, there are -- I think there are 4 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world. 5 Five -- five countries -- five predominantly 6 Muslim countries are on this list. 7 The population of the -- of the 8 predominantly Muslim countries on this list 9 make up about 8 percent of the world's Muslim 10 population. 11 MR. KATYAL: Absolutely. 12 JUSTICE ALITO: If you looked at the 13 10 countries with the most Muslims, exactly 14 one -- 15 MR. KATYAL: 16 JUSTICE ALITO: 17 Right. that list of the top 10. 18 MR. KATYAL: 19 JUSTICE ALITO: 20 21 -- Iran, would be on Right. So would a reasonable observer think this was a Muslim ban? MR. KATYAL: If it were -- if it were 22 just the text of the order alone, it might 23 raise eyebrows, for fit and other reasons that 24 the briefs go into, but we wouldn't be here. 25 We absolutely agree that just -- it's the same Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 65 1 test as in Lukumi and other cases. 2 look to all the circumstances around it that 3 are said, the publicly available ones. 4 You have to You know, and, Justice Alito, the fact 5 that the order only come -- encompasses some 6 Muslim countries I don't think means it's not 7 religious discrimination. 8 an employer and I have 10 African-Americans 9 working for me and I only fire two of them, I For example, if I'm 10 don't think -- you know, and say, well, I've 11 left the other eight in, I don't think anyone 12 can say that's not discrimination. 13 JUSTICE ALITO: No, I -- I understand 14 that. And it is one of our fundamental values 15 that there is religious freedom here for 16 everybody in that, number -- adherence to every 17 religion are entitled to equal treatment. 18 My only point is that if you look at 19 what was done, it does not look at all like a 20 Muslim ban. 21 that jump out as to why these particular 22 countries were put on -- on the list. 23 There are other justifications So you -- it seems to me the list 24 creates a strong inference that this was not 25 done for that invidious purpose. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 66 1 MR. KATYAL: Justice Alito, I think if 2 it were just the list, I think we'd be right -- 3 you'd be right, although I'd point out that 4 you, yourself, in the Stormans case said that 5 it's a religious -- it raises an inference of 6 religious gerrymander, of "the burden imposed 7 falls almost exclusively on those with 8 religious objections." 9 This is a ban that really does fall 10 almost exclusively on Muslims, between 11 90.2 percent and 99.8 percent Muslims. 12 it does look very much like what you said in 13 Stormans. 14 if it weren't for all of the different 15 statements. 16 And so But even then, we wouldn't be here And the best evidence of this, about 17 what a reasonable, objective observer would 18 think, is to look at the wide variety of amicus 19 briefs in this case from every corner of 20 society representing millions and millions of 21 people from the U.S. Conference of Catholic 22 Bishops, which calls it "blatant religious 23 discrimination." 24 25 JUSTICE GORSUCH: Mr. Katyal, on that, it's been a long time since this court has used Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 67 1 the Lemon test, reasonable observer, even to 2 strike down a domestic statute, let alone 3 something with purely international 4 application. 5 What -- what do we do about that? MR. KATYAL: Yeah, so two things. 6 Number one is I think the very fact that this 7 is immigration cuts the other way. 8 heart of the First Amendment is about 9 immigration restrictions on, for example, I mean, the 10 Catholics at the founding and our protest of 11 King George, which is all about using the 12 immigration power to exclude people of a 13 different faith. 14 Constitution is about, so that's the first 15 thing. 16 And that's what our And the second is we don't think you 17 have to get into Lemon and all these other 18 tests that you all have struggled with. 19 think this Court in Lukumi was very clear in 20 saying that when you're talking about 21 denigration of religion, all the tests point in 22 the same direction. 23 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I Mr. Katyal, you 24 said something earlier, you said you wouldn't 25 be here if all of those statements, the Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 68 1 background statements, were not made. 2 mean that on all of your bases? 3 be here on the Establishment Clause claim? 4 MR. KATYAL: Do you You wouldn't Only on the Establishment 5 Clause claim, not on anything else. 6 point is, you know, he talks about, for 7 example, this worldwide vetting process. 8 9 And our Remember his own argument on 1182 is the statute puts the President -- 10 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So let's go back 11 to not being here without the statements. 12 Clearly, the statements, even conceded by your 13 adversary, do give you a basis to look behind, 14 all right, the reason. 15 So, if we're looking behind it, how do 16 you deal with the General's suggestion that 17 there was a cleansing that occurred because of 18 all of the agencies and departments who 19 participated in this process? 20 MR. KATYAL: Yeah. So there's three 21 things. 22 argument is that 1182 puts the President in the 23 driver's seat, so the cabinet's not important. 24 It's the President's proclamation. 25 Number one is that his -- his own Second, the order itself says in its Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 69 1 first lines, it harkens back to Executive 2 Orders 1 and 2, and it says it's an outgrowth 3 of that. 4 that was struck down on Establishment Clause 5 grounds in other cases. 6 So it was infected by the same thing And third, and most importantly, the 7 President before this review process even began 8 tweeted and said that he wanted a tougher ban, 9 a non-politically-correct ban and the like. 10 So given all of those things, but, in 11 particular, given the fact that 1182 itself 12 forces the President to make the proclamation, 13 it's the President's proclamation, so I don't 14 think you even have to get into this whole 15 unitary executive thing, but I do agree with 16 you, Justice Sotomayor, that that's another 17 problem, which is they're coming before the 18 Court and saying: 19 who's in charge. 20 Oh, no, no, no, it's these other people. 21 Nope, it's the President And now they're saying here: This is the President's proclamation 22 through and through. 23 said anything -- anything like this. 24 that's what makes this different. 25 No President has ever And And the President -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 70 1 JUSTICE KAGAN: And -- and yet, Mr. 2 Katyal, you have a proclamation that says there 3 are important national security interests at 4 stake. 5 of analysis that you want us to do without in 6 some sense evaluating the adequacy of those 7 national security interests, which for the most 8 part we've said courts are not equipped to do. 9 And the question is how to do the kind MR. KATYAL: Right. We're not asking 10 you to second-guess a national security 11 judgment at all with the purpose of the 12 Establishment Clause. 13 We're saying you just have to look to 14 what a reasonable, objective observer would do. 15 That's the ordinary test that you've used in 16 cases like Lukumi. 17 purpose to disparage a religion? 18 very much is. 19 that the President has said and that the order 20 itself embodies. 21 problem. 22 Is there an official Here, there That's, you know, everything That's our fundamental JUSTICE BREYER: What do you think -- 23 it's a -- it's a -- it's still something I'm -- 24 I'm thinking about, perhaps to the side, but 25 the statute you point to, one of the ones that Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 71 1 is stronger for you. 2 objections to what you're saying in quite a few 3 briefs, all right, but the one that you talked 4 about, it does say you have to have an 5 interview with a consular official if the 6 person is from a country officially designated 7 by the Secretary as a state sponsor of 8 terrorism. 9 There are obviously It does say that. So they'll say, but we do have that in 10 respect to everyone under the exception. 11 there isn't much problem. 12 that in respect to other people. 13 Take their argument for a moment. 14 So We've gone beyond All right. Because my question is, which I 15 couldn't find in the briefs, is, is it true -- 16 I'm just taking what they say -- that really 17 that isn't so, they don't publicize it, they 18 haven't put forth a guidance, people don't know 19 they can come in and qualify for this. 20 And if it turns out that that is 21 something that is important to the lawfulness 22 of the order, because there are many, many 23 categories there -- 24 MR. KATYAL: Right. 25 JUSTICE BREYER: -- what do we do? Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 72 1 MR. KATYAL: So two things. Number 2 one, this waiver process has excluded -- and 3 you have this in the PARS Equality brief at 4 page 14. 5 wants to come to the United States to save her 6 life and she can't move or talk. 7 10-year-old was denied a waiver, Justice 8 Breyer. 9 A 10-year-old with cerebral palsy who The He says there is 430 people who have 10 gotten waivers. 11 denominator and there is no publication of this 12 process and how -- how often it is. 13 data that we do have suggests as a matter of 14 percentages it is very weak. 15 They've never told you the And the Just to give you some evidence of 16 that, just the State of Hawaii has gotten about 17 a thousand letters from people, most of which 18 say we're not even getting waivers and the 19 like. 20 JUSTICE GORSUCH: 21 MR. KATYAL: 22 JUSTICE GORSUCH: That -- We've heard very few --- raises a question 23 of remedy for me. We have this troubling rise 24 of this nationwide injunction, cosmic 25 injunction -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 73 1 MR. KATYAL: Yeah, yeah. 2 JUSTICE GORSUCH: -- not limited to 3 relief for the parties at issue or even a class 4 action. 5 MR. KATYAL: Right. 6 JUSTICE GORSUCH: And, near as I can 7 tell, that's -- that's a really new development 8 where a district court asserts the right to 9 strike down a -- a federal statute with regard 10 to anybody anywhere in the world. 11 MR. KATYAL: 12 JUSTICE GORSUCH: 13 Yeah. What -- what do we do about that? 14 MR. KATYAL: Obviously the injunction 15 here has been trimmed by this Court itself and 16 others. 17 impulse, Justice Gorsuch. 18 that I think lower courts are debating right 19 now in a number of different contexts, like the 20 contraception case and the like. 21 And I do think -- I share your That's something I think this case is the poorest 22 example to get into it because of United States 23 versus Texas's point, which is this is an 24 immigration case. 25 Congress in the driver's seat and says there And Article I Section 8 puts Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 74 1 must be a uniform rule of naturalization. 2 So I think for those reasons, you 3 know, I get why the Court might want to get 4 into it. 5 Supreme Court, probably doesn't make a 6 tremendous amount of sense. 7 an advisory opinion. 8 9 Getting into it here, I think, in the It would almost be Our fundamental point to you, though, is that Congress is in the driver's seat when 10 it comes to immigration, and that this 11 executive order transgresses the limits that 12 every President has done with this proclamation 13 power since 1918. 14 accept that the President can take an iron 15 wrecking ball to the statute and pick and 16 choose things that he doesn't want for purposes 17 of our immigration code. 18 of the United States. 19 20 And to accept it here is to That can't be the law CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: extra minutes. 21 MR. KATYAL: 22 (Laughter.) 23 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 24 25 Take five Okay. Okay. You don't have to. (Laughter.) Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 75 1 MR. KATYAL: Well, if there -- if 2 there are any other questions I'm happy to take 3 anything. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Okay? Thank you. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: counsel. Thank you, Five minutes for rebuttal, General. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF GENERAL NOEL J. FRANCISCO ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS GENERAL FRANCISCO: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court: I -- I really do have just a few quick 11 points, unless Your Honors have additional 12 questions. 13 Justice Breyer, I did want to respond 14 in more detail to your question about how the 15 waiver process works. 16 does publish the waiver process on its web 17 site, but the waiver process actually is 18 applied automatically by consular officers. 19 The State Department So when somebody applies for a visa, 20 the waiver -- the visa officer first determines 21 whether the person is otherwise admissible 22 under other provisions of the INA. 23 If they're inadmissible, you never 24 even get to the proclamation. Then, for those 25 people who are not inadmissible under other Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 76 1 parts of the INA, like 1182(a), the consular 2 officer then turns to the proclamation and 3 first asks: 4 within the proclamation? 5 the proclamation never applies. 6 Are you subject to an exception If you are, fine, and If you're not subject to an exception, 7 then the consular officer, him or herself, 8 turns to the waiver provision and applies the 9 criteria of the waiver provision. 10 11 JUSTICE GINSBURG: with the -- 12 13 How do you deal GENERAL FRANCISCO: So it does get applied in every single case. 14 JUSTICE GINSBURG: How -- how do you 15 deal with the example that was brought up of 16 the child with cerebral palsy? 17 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, the 18 waiver is built to address those issues. 19 not familiar enough with the details of that 20 case to tell you what happened in that 21 particular case. 22 23 24 25 I am But that's what the waiver provision -JUSTICE BREYER: But that's -- that's, you see -- Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 77 1 2 GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- is intended to address. 3 JUSTICE BREYER: You've read the 4 briefs, as have I. 5 some that lists about ten or 15 instances like 6 the cerebral palsy. 7 there's another brief that lists all the people 8 who are professors, scholars, at universities, 9 and there are a lot. 10 11 All right. Now, there's One has Parkinson's. Then And -- and then there are people, they list the students from these countries, a lot. 12 GENERAL FRANCISCO: 13 JUSTICE BREYER: Yeah. And then the business 14 community lists a -- a whole bunch and says, my 15 goodness, they have been unable to get -- we 16 don't know what's going on. 17 And then they say: 18 on is nothing is going on. 19 20 21 GENERAL FRANCISCO: JUSTICE BREYER: not taking sides on that. 23 don't know. 25 Well, Your Honor -- 22 24 Well, what's going Now, I don't -- I'm GENERAL FRANCISCO: I'm just saying I Right. And the principal purpose of the proclamation is, of Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 78 1 course, to assert pressure on these countries 2 in order to provide us with the needed 3 information, which brings me to the second 4 point in the four that I am hoping to try to 5 make. 6 And, that is, that the individual 7 vetting process depends upon us having the 8 minimum baseline of information needed to 9 determine in that vetting process whether the 10 person is admissible. 11 So when the person shows up at our 12 border with a visa that we may have validly 13 issued, pursuant to that individual vetting 14 process, but if her home government knows 15 something that we don't and doesn't tell us, we 16 cannot intelligently make the admissibility 17 determination. 18 Third, I'd like to address the 19 1152(a)(1)(A) point about nationality-based 20 discrimination. 21 22 23 24 25 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General, could you stop just one second? GENERAL FRANCISCO: Yes, Your Honor, of course. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I for one am, like Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 79 1 Justice Breyer, concerned about is this window 2 dressing or not? 3 it's not? 4 represent to us that it is, in fact, a real 5 waiver process? 6 What's in place to ensure What are you personally doing to GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, State 7 Department consular officers automatically 8 apply the waiver process in the course of every 9 visa application. And they are doing that, 10 which is why there have been -- and I looked at 11 our brief -- 430 waivers that have been issued 12 since -- 13 14 15 16 17 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Have you bothered GENERAL FRANCISCO: -- the -- proclamation was issued. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- to look to see 18 if there are reasons for all of those people's 19 exclusions? 20 GENERAL FRANCISCO: Your Honor, I 21 cannot claim that I have looked into every 22 individual case. 23 24 25 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could you make your 1152 point? GENERAL FRANCISCO: Yes, Your Honor. Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 80 1 1152(a)(1)(A) addresses one thing, the issuance 2 of immigrant visas. 3 broader question over whether somebody is 4 allowed to enter in the first place. 5 It doesn't address the That's governed by 1182, including 6 1182(f). 7 of people who are eligible to come into the 8 country in the first place. 9 So essentially 1182 sets the universe And that is often a foreign policy and 10 national security judgment. 11 one of the rules that governs how we distribute 12 visas amongst that group that's eligible to 13 come in. 14 1152(a)(1)(A) is And it is not just nationality-based 15 distinctions that it applies to. 16 applies to things like place of residence. 17 once you have that universe of eligible people, 18 1152(a)(1)(A) governs how you distribute them. 19 It also But let's assume that you disagreed 20 with me. 21 have to implement this proclamation in a 22 slightly different way. 23 So All it would really mean is that we We would have to issue immigrant 24 visas, but not non-immigrant visas to people 25 who aren't allowed to enter, but we wouldn't Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 81 1 have to allow anyone to enter and we wouldn't 2 have to issue any non-immigrant visas. 3 4 So the bottom line is I think they're simply wrong on that case -- on that issue. 5 My final point has to do with my -- my 6 brother's recognition that, if the President 7 were to say tomorrow that he was sorry, all of 8 this would go away. 9 made crystal clear on September 25th that he 10 had no intention of imposing the Muslim ban. 11 Well, the President has He has made crystal clear that Muslims 12 in this country are great Americans and there 13 are many, many Muslim countries who love this 14 country and he has praised Islam as one of the 15 great countries of the world. 16 This proclamation is about what it 17 says it's about: 18 security. 19 the court below. 20 21 22 23 Foreign policy and national And we would ask that you reverse CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: counsel. Thank you, The case is submitted. (Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the case was submitted.) 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation 82 1 1 [1] 69:2 10 [3] 64:13,17 65:8 10-year-old [4] 51:23,25 72:4,7 10:02 [2] 1:16 3:2 100 [4] 35:1 40:5 48:11 53:5 11 [1] 44:8 11:09 [1] 81:22 1152 [7] 40:15 49:2 59:8 60:14 61: 6,13 79:24 1152(a)(1)(A [4] 78:19 80:1,10,18 1182 [10] 10:18 44:17 47:19 49:7 53:21 68:8,22 69:11 80:5,6 1182(a [1] 76:1 1182(f [18] 4:5,9,13,18 5:4 6:16 7: 11,20 10:25 13:14 38:14 43:20,23 44:8,23 49:5 53:24 80:6 12 [1] 55:14 1202(h)(2 [1] 55:15 1361 [1] 42:25 14 [1] 72:4 15 [1] 77:5 150 [2] 32:3 36:16 17 [1] 36:12 17-965 [1] 3:4 180 [2] 46:16,19 19 [1] 54:22 1918 [1] 74:13 1965 [1] 45:20 2 2 [1] 69:2 20 [1] 40:6 2001 [1] 45:22 2015 [1] 45:23 2018 [1] 1:12 25 [1] 1:12 25th [1] 81:9 3 3 [1] 2:4 38 [1] 2:7 39 [2] 59:12 61:7 4 400 43 [1] 47:13 430 [2] 72:9 79:11 46 [1] 34:16 460 [2] 41:17 59:3 [2] 36:13,16 5 50 [1] 64:4 7 70 [2] 50:10 61:25 75 [1] 2:10 8 8 [2] 64:9 73:24 80 [2] 30:5,10 9 90.2 [1] 66:11 99.8 [1] 66:11 Official - Subject to Final Review 5,6,13 A ALITO [16] 43:19,22 44:4,6,11 45: a.m [3] 1:16 3:2 81:22 Abilene [1] 54:17 ability [1] 62:12 able [2] 22:7 51:6 above-entitled [1] 1:14 abroad [1] 21:10 absolute [1] 42:6 absolutely [12] 41:12 42:11 45:18 48:25 49:15 58:2 61:4,19 62:19 63:12 64:11,25 abstract [1] 57:12 academic [1] 34:16 accept [8] 13:8 45:2 50:1,3 53:4 59:20 74:13,14 acceptability [1] 10:8 account [2] 10:5 64:1 accurate [1] 12:18 across [3] 10:7 25:21 29:20 act [4] 12:8 17:4 41:24 43:20 acting [1] 3:13 action [4] 25:8 38:3 49:13 73:4 actions [1] 24:4 activity [1] 31:16 acts [3] 4:10 28:8,16 actually [13] 11:19,23 17:2,18 21:9 22:23 24:7 25:4 29:6 37:19 43:17 59:25 75:17 add [1] 6:4 added [1] 5:19 addition [2] 6:17 14:25 additional [1] 75:11 address [10] 7:1 12:6,18 13:3 29:6 57:20 76:18 77:2 78:18 80:2 addressed [2] 5:9 57:15 addresses [3] 7:6 39:7 80:1 adequacy [2] 57:16 70:6 adequate [1] 6:10 adherence [1] 65:16 administration [2] 58:5 60:11 admissibility [3] 7:8 8:20 78:16 admissible [4] 4:24 8:16 75:21 78: 10 admission [1] 39:21 admitted [1] 34:21 adopt [1] 3:14 adopts [1] 3:18 adversary [1] 68:13 advice [2] 17:6 28:6 advisors [2] 48:19 50:8 advisory [1] 74:7 affirm [1] 5:24 afford [1] 38:17 afoul [1] 50:6 African-Americans [1] 65:8 agencies [5] 19:22 25:12,13 40:4 68:18 agree [3] 15:21 64:25 69:15 ahead [1] 30:8 air [1] 48:21 AL [2] 1:4,7 aliens [16] 4:24 12:8 16:22 21:10 39:7,12 44:9,12,15 51:1,3,7,15 52: 13 46:9 56:3,11 63:24 64:12,16, 19 65:4,13 66:1 allies [2] 7:3 17:16 allow [3] 4:13 44:18 81:1 allowed [3] 17:5 80:4,25 allowing [1] 53:13 almost [8] 11:6 15:4,5 30:4,10 66: 7,10 74:6 Alomari [2] 51:22,22 alone [2] 64:22 67:2 already [3] 6:10,24 39:5 although [3] 37:7 44:12 66:3 Amendment [3] 39:4 61:1 67:8 American [1] 11:11 Americans [2] 40:9 81:12 amicus [1] 66:18 amongst [1] 80:12 amount [1] 74:6 analysis [3] 9:14 16:21 70:5 animus [1] 17:7 another [10] 5:19 12:20 27:6 35: 17 54:1,12 63:4,23 69:16 77:7 answer [9] 6:15 11:9 36:7 38:7 45: 1 51:8 62:8 63:6,8 answers [1] 52:22 anti-atheist [1] 22:1 anti-Muslim [2] 50:4 62:5 anti-Semite [1] 16:2 anti-Semitic [2] 19:1 26:16 anti-Semitism [1] 16:12 anticipated [2] 58:13,15 anybody [1] 73:10 anyway [1] 31:2 APPEARANCES [1] 1:18 appears [1] 31:6 applicable [1] 63:17 application [2] 67:4 79:9 applied [10] 11:16,19 15:2 19:10, 20 26:6 29:20 38:12 75:18 76:13 applies [9] 3:22 16:23 21:10 62:13 75:19 76:5,8 80:15,16 apply [9] 14:7 15:7,8 19:15 21:9 22:23 25:13 35:7 79:8 approach [1] 46:6 appropriate [1] 30:23 April [1] 1:12 arbiter [1] 26:19 area [5] 4:19 10:16 15:18 47:16 56: 25 aren't [2] 43:9 80:25 arguably [1] 47:15 argued [1] 23:3 argument [37] 1:15 2:2,5,8 3:4,8 12:1,2,4,14,22 13:2,7 14:7,10,13 19:6,9 38:20 43:14 47:2 48:8,9 49: 20,22 50:25 54:6 56:15,16 57:19, 24 60:5 63:16 68:8,22 71:13 75:6 arguments [5] 30:12 40:14 50:4 52:4,10 arise [2] 57:17,21 around [3] 48:12 63:5 65:2 Article [2] 13:6 73:24 aside [1] 44:12 asks [3] 16:6 51:5 76:3 assert [2] 51:6 78:1 asserts [1] 73:8 associate [1] 22:8 associated [1] 8:12 assume [4] 19:5,8 20:13 80:19 assumption [3] 30:14 37:22 50: 24 attitude [1] 22:4 Attorney [1] 5:23 authorities [1] 49:16 authority [7] 6:9,16 7:12 38:13 42: 13 56:14 59:2 authorize [2] 42:4,8 automatically [2] 75:18 79:7 available [1] 65:3 aware [2] 39:15,23 away [2] 62:16 81:8 B back [6] 23:1 35:17 47:13 48:11 68:10 69:1 backdrop [1] 26:10 background [2] 26:17 68:1 balance [2] 45:25 48:16 ball [2] 50:16 74:15 ban [22] 29:8,10 39:19 40:11,15 43: 13 46:4 48:15 49:18 53:19 55:12, 21 58:20 59:25 60:9 64:2,20 65: 20 66:9 69:8,9 81:10 banned [1] 58:20 bans [3] 39:22 45:19,24 bar [3] 14:20 39:1 54:19 bare [1] 29:25 based [7] 14:15 17:22 27:2 29:19 60:5,5,7 baseline [14] 3:16,21,23 7:22 8:19 9:7,21,24 15:3,6 19:20 29:24 39: 17 78:8 bases [1] 68:2 basic [4] 6:15 7:25 12:7 30:12 basically [2] 23:4,22 basis [8] 8:5 17:14,21 19:13 46:9 49:25 59:10 68:13 became [1] 39:15 become [1] 59:18 becomes [1] 59:17 began [1] 69:7 behalf [9] 1:21,22 2:4,7,10 3:9 38: 21 51:13 75:7 behind [2] 68:13,15 believe [1] 36:12 below [6] 3:23 9:21,24,24 25:24 81:19 benefit [1] 7:3 berth [2] 56:25 62:20 best [1] 66:16 better [3] 10:22 18:14 52:16 between [2] 54:11 66:10 beyond [2] 35:10 71:11 big [3] 39:22 40:3 53:15 bigger [1] 44:4 bill [4] 42:4,7,9,10 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 1 1 - bill 83 Official - Subject to Final Review biological [1] 40:8 biometric [1] 43:1 Bishops [1] 66:22 bit [2] 6:14 14:1 blatant [1] 66:22 Blatt [1] 34:18 block [1] 42:10 border [4] 8:8,14 60:3 78:12 both [5] 20:4 27:1 30:17 40:18 43: carrot [2] 56:1 58:23 college [1] 21:24 carrots [3] 39:19 43:10 46:7 come [13] 13:24 17:2 32:8 46:19 Carter [6] 9:3 10:13 11:3 30:16 35: 52:1 53:10 55:15 59:17 65:5 71: continuing [2] 46:25 47:21 contours [1] 15:20 contraception [1] 73:20 3 38:2 19 72:5 80:7,13 contradicts [1] 59:19 Carter's [4] 11:13,16,18,22 comes [3] 13:22 57:9 74:10 contrary [2] 54:1,9 Case [25] 3:4 10:9 12:22 13:17 14: coming [5] 7:9 27:13 42:19,25 69: contravention [2] 54:20,21 11 15:9,14 19:5 20:8 23:3 45:12 17 convinced [1] 48:5 comments [2] 16:3 19:1 cooperate [5] 8:4 39:8 46:8 48:13 51:10 54:16 66:4,19 73:20,21,24 committee [4] 5:12 23:23 24:4,5 57:9 76:13,20,21 79:22 81:4,21,22 cooperated [1] 39:20 25 case-by-case [5] 30:17,21,23 38: community [3] 34:15,16 77:14 companies [1] 46:2 cooperating [3] 42:18 43:9 55:11 bothered [1] 79:13 5,5 compare [1] 10:12 core [1] 7:20 bothering [1] 23:2 cases [5] 15:18 54:18 65:1 69:5 complaining [1] 34:15 corner [1] 66:19 bottom [1] 81:3 70:16 complete [1] 11:8 correct [4] 13:9,11 43:21 44:10 bounds [1] 28:11 categories [1] 71:23 completely [2] 24:7 54:1 bracketed [1] 59:6 Catholic [1] 66:21 cosmic [1] 72:24 comply [1] 24:23 branch [8] 7:15,16,17,18 23:9 27: Catholics [1] 67:10 Cotton [1] 54:17 comports [1] 40:16 5,6 28:10 caution [1] 59:3 couldn't [3] 22:20 60:20 71:15 BREYER [49] 13:15 30:3,9,20 31:9, cerebral [4] 52:1 72:4 76:16 77:6 comprehensive [2] 55:1,8 counsel [2] 75:5 81:21 concede [3] 41:20 52:13,22 12,20,24 32:2,9,12,14,22,25 33:4, certain [3] 11:17 14:20 18:13 countermand [2] 45:7 50:17 conceded [1] 68:12 8,14,18,21,25 34:3,6,10,24 35:9, certainly [2] 50:13 57:1 countermanded [1] 47:15 Concepcion [1] 54:17 13,21 36:1,4,7,9,15,18,25 37:9,16, Chad [3] 4:6 10:10 29:14 countermanding [1] 43:15 concern [2] 5:9 26:9 20,25 44:1 51:24 70:22 71:25 72: chain [1] 45:5 countermands [2] 45:21 53:7 8 75:13 76:24 77:3,13,21 79:1 challenge [4] 20:7 21:20,23 51:11 concerned [3] 32:16 59:5 79:1 countries [45] 3:15,22,25 5:18,21, Breyer's [1] 56:23 change [5] 9:2 33:12 39:24,25 58: concerns [2] 11:22 12:9 22 7:4,9 9:19,20 10:4,7 11:12 15: concluded [4] 15:4 19:23 25:15 brief [14] 34:18 35:6,16 36:10 43: 5 6 22:9 25:19,21 26:7 29:13 32:2 29:21 18 46:2 48:11 50:9 51:23 54:22 charge [2] 24:2 69:19 36:19 39:8,10,16,19 42:17 43:9 conduct [2] 8:24 9:5 62:1 72:3 77:7 79:11 check [1] 25:1 46:7 48:13 55:10,23 57:8 58:2 60: Conference [1] 66:21 briefed [1] 52:24 chemical [1] 40:7 2 64:4,5,6,8,13 65:6,22 77:11 78: briefs [9] 4:13 30:5 34:14 44:25 64: CHIEF [47] 3:3,10 11:25 12:11,17, confident [1] 19:12 1 81:13,15 24 66:19 71:3,15 77:4 21 13:1 30:7 38:15,16,19,22 40:2, confidential [1] 26:2 country [29] 4:1,6 8:11 9:9 15:3 bring [7] 20:10,13,21 21:7 22:9 51: 24 41:6,18,22 42:3 48:18 49:4,11, confidentiality [1] 26:9 19:22 25:14,15 27:13 30:2 32:8 2 52:17 12,19,24 50:3 57:11,23 58:4,8,12 confirms [1] 29:18 42:13 43:4 44:14 48:24 51:1,4,7, bringing [1] 51:11 60:4,12,23 61:2,9,12 62:10,21 63: conflict [1] 54:11 16 52:5,7 56:7 58:6,15 60:2 71:6 conflicts [1] 38:25 brings [1] 78:3 6,9,14,19 74:19,23 75:4,8 81:20 80:8 81:12,14 Congress [40] 4:10,15 5:7,10 6:4, country's [1] 17:16 broad [5] 4:18 11:4,6 44:17,23 child [1] 76:16 broader [1] 80:3 choices [1] 39:1 8,10,24 38:3 39:5,15,18,23 41:15, couple [2] 26:23 32:20 broadly [1] 42:7 choose [1] 74:16 23 42:14,22 43:7,11,19,20 44:19 course [8] 13:23 16:4,6 35:18 61: broke [1] 25:3 Christian [1] 21:24 45:20 47:8,8,9 48:15 53:8 54:25 10 78:1,24 79:8 brother's [1] 81:6 Circuit [3] 25:25,25 63:20 55:2,8,18 57:6,15,19 58:12,15,19 COURT [22] 1:1,15 3:11 12:18 13: brought [1] 76:15 circumstances [4] 30:24 39:24 73:25 74:9 8 14:21 38:23 52:18,25 59:4 61: Brown [1] 54:16 63:5 65:2 Congress's [7] 38:25 40:17 43:16 17 63:1,1 66:25 67:19 69:18 73:8, built [1] 76:18 cite [2] 7:6 13:21 45:21 47:15 50:17 53:7 15 74:3,5 75:9 81:19 bunch [1] 77:14 citizen [3] 28:4,9 61:22 consequences [1] 50:15 Court's [3] 41:10 45:11 54:15 burden [2] 39:13 66:6 citizens [1] 51:11 consider [6] 19:6 28:1 37:17,21 courts [5] 26:3 56:17,19 70:8 73: burdens [1] 42:24 claim [15] 13:20 20:3,8,10,11,13, 38:9 57:7 18 business [4] 31:14 34:15 36:5 77: 21,24 21:8,12 22:22 50:12 68:3,5 considerations [4] 10:6 46:1,1 covered [2] 11:14 29:14 13 79:21 48:17 covers [2] 11:12 59:13 claimed [1] 26:21 considered [1] 55:3 created [2] 5:8,15 C claims [4] 13:17 21:2 22:16 51:2 considers [1] 57:4 creates [1] 65:24 cabinet [9] 16:6,24 17:1 19:21 24: class [10] 31:25 32:5,16 34:11 43: consistent [2] 28:17 47:16 credit [1] 39:20 19,22,23 25:11 28:7 25 44:7,11,12,14 73:3 constantly [1] 7:18 criminal [2] 8:3 30:1 cabinet's [1] 68:23 Clause [15] 13:20 19:11 20:3,6,24 constitute [2] 44:14 49:20 crisis [2] 47:5,25 cabinet-level [3] 15:2 17:25 19: 21:8,15 22:22 28:5 49:22 54:18 Constitution [3] 24:21 28:6 67:14 criteria [8] 5:12 9:10 29:20,21 33: 19 68:3,5 69:4 70:12 constitutional [6] 13:17 15:9 19: 17,19 39:17 76:9 California [1] 53:20 cleansing [1] 68:17 15 21:11 50:12 63:3 cross [1] 16:10 call [1] 27:5 clear [10] 9:23 17:17 21:20 50:14 constitutionally [1] 28:7 crystal [2] 81:9,11 calls [1] 66:22 54:10 60:13 61:4 67:19 81:9,11 construct [1] 25:13 Cuba [2] 9:5 47:4 came [2] 1:14 57:24 clearer [1] 60:20 consular [6] 12:1 71:5 75:18 76:1, current [1] 36:11 campaign [9] 16:5 28:2,3,18,23 Clearly [1] 68:12 7 79:7 cuts [1] 67:7 60:6,8,15 61:21 close [1] 31:17 contacts [1] 31:13 D candidate [1] 28:14 closest [2] 7:3 17:16 contemplated [1] 54:5 [3] [5] D.C 1:11,20,22 cannot 8:15 21:16 56:11 78:16 Code [2] 53:15 74:17 context [3] 16:12,20 18:22 danger [1] 5:25 79:21 coequal [1] 27:6 contexts [2] 57:17 73:19 dangerous [1] 58:24 careful [1] 44:20 coexist [2] 54:24 55:11 contingency [1] 56:19 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 2 biological - dangerous 84 Official - Subject to Final Review data [1] 72:13 daughter [1] 51:25 day [5] 28:16 40:6,12 62:24 63:15 days [4] 41:17 46:16,19 59:3 deal [8] 42:22,23 43:8 56:14 58:23 68:16 76:10,15 deals [1] 55:9 dealt [3] 16:25 41:10 45:11 debating [1] 73:18 decent [1] 36:4 decided [3] 6:10 12:12,13 decision [3] 21:19 41:8 59:4 decisions [1] 54:15 deemed [1] 56:8 deems [1] 47:20 defend [1] 24:20 deference [2] 41:16 56:22 defies [1] 39:1 definite [1] 35:4 definitely [1] 20:6 deliberations [1] 24:15 denied [1] 72:7 denigrating [1] 16:2 denigration [1] 67:21 denominator [1] 72:11 Department [3] 1:20 75:15 79:7 departments [1] 68:18 depending [1] 63:4 depends [1] 78:7 described [3] 8:11 26:11 52:25 designated [2] 5:18 71:6 despite [1] 12:14 detail [3] 10:20 27:1 75:14 detailed [3] 10:18,25 11:10 details [1] 76:19 determination [2] 8:15 78:17 determine [4] 4:24 7:8 8:19 78:9 determined [1] 7:14 determines [1] 75:20 developing [1] 57:14 development [1] 73:7 difference [2] 27:21 62:18 different [10] 8:22 35:10 40:14 53: distinctions [1] 80:15 distinguish [1] 15:13 distribute [2] 80:11,18 district [1] 73:8 Doe [1] 8:8 doing [8] 6:3 22:6 25:11 50:13 53: 25 54:11 79:3,9 domestic [2] 19:10 67:2 DONALD [2] 1:3 3:5 done [9] 19:21 24:9 26:4 35:2 44: 19 59:25 65:19,25 74:12 doom [1] 46:13 dot [1] 16:9 down [4] 25:3 67:2 69:4 73:9 dressing [3] 35:7,19 79:2 driver's [3] 68:23 73:25 74:9 dropped [1] 4:6 duty [2] 27:3 56:17 duty-bound [1] 24:20 E earlier [2] 27:10 67:24 easily [1] 62:16 easy [1] 19:4 economic [1] 46:1 economics [1] 53:18 effectively [1] 27:23 eight [1] 65:11 either [2] 11:12 26:2 elected [2] 16:1 28:16 eligible [3] 80:7,12,17 embodies [1] 70:20 embodiment [1] 28:10 embraced [1] 62:17 emergency [5] 40:21 41:13 57:2 20:3,24 21:7,15 22:22 49:22 68:3, 4 69:4 70:12 ET [2] 1:4,7 evaluating [1] 70:6 evaluation [1] 26:4 even [20] 13:10 17:6,13 19:5,8 25: 8 41:18 47:14 53:15 54:20 58:16 59:2 66:13 67:1 68:12 69:7,14 72: 18 73:3 75:24 everybody [2] 21:20 65:16 everyone [1] 71:10 everything [2] 27:22 70:18 evidence [2] 66:16 72:15 exact [4] 36:14 42:15 53:9 55:9 exactly [12] 6:25 26:3 43:11 45:20 52:25 56:22 57:7 61:25 62:9,25 63:19 64:13 example [14] 8:6 40:22 45:3 50:25 51:19,22 55:13 57:24 62:1 65:7 67:9 68:7 73:22 76:15 examples [2] 30:25 53:8 exception [7] 9:21,23 11:20 36:22 71:10 76:3,6 exceptions [2] 30:18,21 exclude [2] 29:11 67:12 excluded [6] 9:10 20:14 32:18 33: 10,15 72:2 exclusion [2] 12:7 16:22 exclusions [1] 79:19 exclusively [2] 66:7,10 executive [23] 7:15,15,16,18 14: 10 23:4,9 24:5,11 28:10 38:24 46: 13 47:12,13 53:6 59:13,19 61:8 62:3,4 69:1,15 74:11 exercise [4] 20:3,6,16 22:15 exercised [1] 53:6 exert [1] 33:11 exerts [1] 3:24 expect [1] 24:21 explore [1] 4:20 expressing [2] 5:10 35:4 extensive [1] 14:25 extent [1] 43:9 extra [2] 39:20 74:20 extreme [8] 5:14 19:16 20:2 23:11, 14 25:2 31:7,10 eyebrows [1] 64:23 22 66:9 falling [1] 34:10 falls [3] 4:4 38:12 66:7 familiar [1] 76:19 families [1] 34:17 family [5] 22:9 31:17 45:4,4 53:13 far [5] 14:13 32:15 41:19 50:23 59: 7 fast-moving [1] 40:22 faster [1] 39:21 father [1] 20:15 favor [1] 15:9 federal [1] 73:9 fell [1] 9:20 few [4] 32:4 71:2 72:21 75:10 final [1] 81:5 find [4] 24:1 35:14,14 71:15 findings [1] 60:10 finds [1] 44:9 fine [3] 25:18 29:22 76:4 fine-grained [4] 45:22 46:6 48:16 50:18 finish [1] 17:11 fire [2] 23:15 65:9 first [21] 14:3,10 24:18 26:24 28:1 32:23 39:4,12 42:5 43:15 47:19 54:23 60:13 61:1 67:8,14 69:1 75: 20 76:3 80:4,8 fit [1] 64:23 five [6] 31:22 64:5,5,5 74:19 75:5 flat [7] 43:12 45:24 46:4 48:15 54: 19 55:12,21 flatly [3] 58:20 59:8,19 flexible [1] 4:18 Focus [1] 31:24 58:25 59:5 folks [1] 52:20 emerges [2] 16:11,13 follow [1] 17:5 employed [1] 31:21 following [1] 30:25 employer [1] 65:8 fomenting [1] 58:18 enacted [1] 43:20 footnote [1] 36:12 encompasses [1] 65:5 force [1] 43:14 end [6] 16:17,19 23:11 45:3,5 46: forces [1] 69:12 20 forecloses [1] 15:16 ends [2] 46:12 47:6 11 55:3 66:14 67:13 69:24 73:19 foreign [8] 4:2 8:25 10:6 12:9 31: engaging [1] 8:25 80:22 13 45:25 80:9 81:17 engineers [2] 53:17,19 difficult [2] 17:13 57:18 forever [1] 62:13 [4] diplomatic [5] 3:24 18:9,12,15 33: enough 4:15 6:8 57:20 76:19 Forge [2] 21:19,22 ensure [2] 26:20 79:2 11 forget [1] 56:2 F enter [7] 16:14 21:11 40:7 62:12 direct [3] 54:10,20,21 form [1] 19:13 80:4,25 81:1 face [1] 24:24 direction [2] 55:4 67:22 forth [2] 6:18 71:18 [1] facial [1] 25:7 directly [6] 50:8 51:18,18,21 52:20 entire 8:10 forward [2] 13:22,24 fact [8] 10:3,11 13:3 26:20 65:4 67: founding [1] 67:10 entirely [1] 53:24 54:8 6 69:11 79:4 entitled [1] 65:17 disagree [1] 46:8 four [1] 78:4 [1] 63:4 factors [1] 55:7 entity disagreed [1] 80:19 Fourth [1] 25:25 entry [6] 3:14 4:14 39:7 40:11 44:9 facts [1] 16:17 disavowing [2] 62:23 63:10 FRANCISCO [115] 1:19 2:3,9 3:7, factual [1] 57:20 59:22 disclaimed [1] 62:15 8,10 4:17 6:1,6,11,22,25 9:12,18 fail [1] 40:3 equal [1] 65:17 discretion [1] 46:25 10:17,21,24 11:5,8,18 12:3,16,24 failed [4] 3:15 9:14 29:23 39:22 Equality [2] 51:23 72:3 discriminating [1] 59:22 13:4,18 14:2,12,23 15:17 16:15, [1] failing [1] 39:16 discrimination [17] 39:2 40:15,20 equipped 70:8 18 17:10,20,24 18:6,21,24 19:2 fails [1] 9:9 ESQ [2] 1:22 2:6 48:23 49:2,21,25 59:9 60:1,5,14, 20:5,16,20,25 21:18 22:5,11,14,19 failure [1] 9:6 essentially [3] 7:14 13:25 80:6 19 63:16 65:7,12 66:23 78:20 23:7,13,18,21,25 24:8,12,16 26:5, fair [1] 5:5 establish [1] 45:15 disease [1] 31:17 12,15,22 27:14,17,19,24 28:20,24 faith [3] 27:4 49:25 67:13 established [1] 31:14 dislike [1] 21:14 30:19 31:8,11,19,23 32:1,6,11,13, fall [7] 3:23 9:24 13:12 32:4,16 43: 20,23 33:2,6,9,16,20,23 34:2,5,8, Establishment [12] 13:20 19:11 disparage [1] 70:17 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 3 data - FRANCISCO 85 Official - Subject to Final Review 23 35:8,12,20,24 36:3,6,8,10,17, 23 37:1,11,18,24 38:7,18 75:6,8 76:12,17 77:1,12,19,24 78:23 79: 6,15,20,25 frankly [1] 37:5 free [7] 20:3,6,7,16,21 22:15,15 freedom [1] 65:15 friend [5] 39:3 43:17 46:13 52:22 61:20 full [1] 15:19 fundamental [5] 28:8 29:3 65:14 70:20 74:8 future [2] 15:25 18:11 guidance [3] 34:22,25 71:18 H Half [2] 46:14 47:4 Hamdan [3] 41:11 56:24 59:7 hand [1] 18:15 happened [1] 76:20 happens [2] 17:15 46:19 happy [1] 75:2 harbored [1] 17:7 hard [1] 15:19 hardship [3] 31:5,6,7 harkens [1] 69:1 harmed [1] 51:18 G harmful [2] 8:24 9:5 harmonize [1] 44:23 game [1] 13:25 Harvard [1] 34:17 gas [1] 54:17 hate [1] 28:15 GEN [3] 1:19 2:3,9 General [125] 1:19 3:8,10 4:17 5:7, hateful [2] 28:15,17 hatred [1] 16:4 23 6:1,6,11,22,25 9:12,18 10:17, 21,24 11:2,5,8,18 12:3,16,24 13:4, HAWAII [4] 1:7 3:6 51:20 72:16 head [2] 23:5,9 16,18 14:2,12,23 15:17 16:15,18 17:10,20,24 18:2,6,21,24 19:2,24 hear [1] 3:3 20:5,16,20,25 21:18 22:5,11,14,19, heard [7] 15:22 39:3,17 45:1 46:12 25 23:7,13,18,21,25 24:8,12,16 25: 22 26:5,12,15,22 27:10,14,17,19, 24 28:20,24 30:19 31:8,11,19,23 32:1,6,11,13,20,23 33:2,6,9,16,20, 23 34:2,5,8,23 35:8,12,20,24 36:3, 6,8,10,17,23 37:1,11,18,24 38:7, 17,18 61:21 75:5,6,8 76:12,17 77: 1,12,19,24 78:21,23 79:6,15,20,25 General's [1] 68:16 George [1] 67:11 gerrymander [1] 66:6 gets [1] 16:1 getting [4] 61:11,14 72:18 74:4 GINSBURG [4] 4:8 44:3 76:10,14 give [8] 7:11 8:6 15:11,24 51:19 56:1 68:13 72:15 given [10] 9:17 14:13 17:15 18:22 19:12 24:10,22 32:17 69:10,11 gives [2] 6:16 22:21 giving [3] 30:24 53:4 59:23 goodness [1] 77:15 GORSUCH [14] 50:19,21 51:13,15 52:3,9,12 66:24 72:20,22 73:2,6, 12,17 got [4] 27:11 35:5 43:1,2 gotten [2] 72:10,16 governed [1] 80:5 government [14] 8:25 9:2 10:9 12: 15,23 13:22 15:23 21:24 26:1 27: 5,7 35:18 50:25 78:14 governments [2] 33:12 37:12 governs [2] 80:11,18 great [4] 24:5 27:1 81:12,15 greater [1] 59:2 greatest [1] 50:10 greenhouse [1] 54:16 ground [3] 21:25 39:24 57:15 grounds [2] 6:24 69:5 group [2] 55:17 80:12 guess [2] 14:17 53:22 52:22 72:21 hearing [1] 35:17 heart [6] 17:6 18:16,18 21:16 59: 16 67:8 hearts [3] 17:6 18:17,18 heated [1] 26:14 heightened [1] 5:14 help [4] 4:21 7:21 8:7 25:20 herself [1] 76:7 hire [1] 23:15 history [6] 8:2,4 10:25 11:11 29: 25 30:1 holds [1] 18:11 holistic [1] 9:14 home [2] 8:11 78:14 Homeland [1] 3:13 honestly [2] 17:3 27:21 Honor [38] 4:17 6:13,19 7:1 8:10 9: 12 10:18 11:5,11 12:3,25 13:18 16:18 17:12 18:7 19:3,18 20:7 21: 1,6,19 24:17 26:22 27:25 28:21 32:7,21 35:24 36:23 38:8 45:18 50:5 76:17 77:19 78:23 79:6,20, 25 Honors [1] 75:11 hoping [1] 78:4 however [3] 4:19 11:3 25:10 humanitarian [2] 11:21 46:2 hypothetical [15] 15:12,22 16:25 18:4,23 19:3,17 20:2 23:20 38:10 41:20,21 42:21 43:5 49:10 I i's [1] 16:10 ID [1] 43:1 idea [1] 45:2 ideal [2] 8:1 29:25 identified [2] 55:10 57:5 identify [1] 8:24 identifying [2] 42:17 48:9 III [1] 13:6 illustrate [1] 8:7 illustration [1] 50:10 image [1] 46:2 imagine [7] 29:10 41:22,23 56:3, 11 58:25 60:20 imbued [1] 12:8 immediate [1] 41:7 immigrant [3] 59:15 80:2,23 immigrants [3] 11:16,17,19 immigration [10] 4:12 31:6 45:16 49:9 67:7,9,12 73:24 74:10,17 impact [1] 49:13 impacted [2] 51:21 52:20 impacts [1] 49:17 impediment [1] 41:15 implement [3] 4:22 7:21 80:21 important [7] 13:24 52:21 59:15 61:7 68:23 70:3 71:21 importantly [2] 5:17 69:6 impose [3] 6:17 10:3 45:5 imposed [3] 25:19 60:1 66:6 imposes [1] 9:1 imposing [1] 81:10 improve [1] 7:18 impulse [1] 73:17 in-person [3] 43:2 55:13,19 INA [11] 4:22,25 6:18 7:21 8:16 44: 24 45:7 50:15 53:17 75:22 76:1 inaccurate [2] 39:10 55:18 inadequate [1] 56:9 inadmissible [2] 75:23,25 including [9] 3:20 15:4 25:15,16 29:14 39:9 42:15 47:4 80:5 intended [1] 77:1 intention [1] 81:10 interests [4] 11:21 31:3 70:3,7 international [1] 67:3 interpretation [1] 59:21 interrupt [1] 40:25 interview [4] 43:3 55:14,19 71:5 introduced [4] 41:18 42:8,9 49:18 introduces [1] 42:4 invidious [1] 65:25 involve [1] 16:22 Iran [2] 9:4 64:16 Iraq [3] 9:23 10:10 29:14 iron [1] 74:14 irrelevant [2] 28:19,23 irrespective [1] 14:7 Islam [1] 81:14 isn't [5] 35:19 38:11 47:8 71:11,17 Israel [4] 16:14 17:15 18:12,13 issuance [3] 49:3 59:10 80:1 issue [10] 12:19 16:7,7,8 49:9 55:3 73:3 80:23 81:2,4 issued [7] 5:4 8:9 11:10 47:14 78: 13 79:11,16 [6] 12:6 27:25 52:23 62:22 63:10 76:18 item [1] 45:8 itself [5] 29:7 68:25 69:11 70:20 73:15 issues J Jane [1] 8:8 Jews [2] 16:3 23:24 job [1] 25:12 join [1] 22:10 joined [1] 56:23 Judge [2] 40:20 60:19 judges [2] 25:24,25 judgment [6] 4:3 45:22 47:15 48: incomplete [1] 23:6 inconsistent [2] 5:2,3 indeed [1] 58:18 independent [1] 26:19 indicates [1] 46:22 20 70:11 80:10 indication [1] 55:2 [4] individual [4] 30:24 78:6,13 79:22 judgments 40:17 43:16 50:18 53:7 [4] individualized 39:13 42:23 46: judicial [1] 16:17 6 58:22 jump [1] 65:21 individuals [2] 7:8 31:25 [1] 13:6 jurisdiction [1] ineffective 29:9 [5] 12:2,4,13 13:3 jurisdictional infected [1] 69:3 52:23 inference [2] 65:24 66:5 jurisprudence [1] 19:11 infiltration [1] 56:5 [213] 1:20 3:3,10 4:8 5:6 6: information [20] 3:16,25 4:23 7:7, Justice 23 8:1,3,19 9:7 29:24 33:13 35:15 39:11 40:5 41:2 55:18,24 58:17 78:3,8 inhibition [1] 62:11 initial [1] 24:25 injunction [5] 21:4 22:20 72:24,25 73:14 injury [1] 21:21 INS [1] 22:13 instances [1] 77:5 Instead [5] 39:19 45:24 46:5 48:15 62:17 intelligence [3] 40:4 41:2 42:6 intelligent [1] 8:15 intelligently [1] 78:16 2,7,20,23 9:8,17 10:11,19,22 11:2, 7,9,15,25 12:11,17,21 13:1,15,16, 19 14:3,17 15:11,21 16:16 17:8, 19,23 18:2,8,22,25 19:24 20:1,12, 18,23 21:12 22:2,6,12,16,18,25 23: 8,14,19,19,22 24:1,9,13 25:22 26: 6,10,13,16 27:9,15,18,20 28:13,22 30:3,7,9,20 31:9,12,20,24 32:2,9, 12,14,22,25 33:4,8,14,18,21,25 34: 3,6,10,24 35:9,13,21 36:1,4,7,9,15, 18,25 37:9,16,20,25 38:15,16,19, 23 40:2,24 41:6,18,22 42:3 43:19, 22 44:1,2,4,6,11 45:13 46:9,15,21, 24 47:1,18 48:4,8,18 49:4,11,12, 19,24 50:3,19,20,21 51:13,15,23 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 4 FRANCISCO - Justice 86 Official - Subject to Final Review 52:3,9,12 53:22 54:7 56:3,11,16, 22,23 57:11,23 58:4,8,12 60:4,12, 23 61:2,9,12 62:10,21 63:6,9,14, 19,23,24 64:12,16,19 65:4,13 66:1, 24 67:23 68:10 69:16 70:1,22 71: 25 72:7,20,22 73:2,6,12,17 74:19, 23 75:4,8,13 76:10,14,24 77:3,13, 21 78:21,25 79:1,13,17,23 81:20 justiciability [1] 13:7 justifications [1] 65:20 legitimate [1] 13:22 Lemon [2] 67:1,17 less [1] 31:10 letters [1] 72:17 level [2] 4:23 7:7 lies [1] 43:14 life [1] 72:6 light [1] 57:14 likelihood [1] 55:17 limit [3] 5:1 44:21 45:10 limitations [1] 60:9 limited [1] 73:2 limits [4] 4:20 6:4 53:25 74:11 line [4] 10:7 25:21 45:8 81:3 lines [1] 69:1 Lisa [1] 34:18 list [10] 4:7 9:11 31:13 64:6,8,17 meet [4] 5:11 14:20 33:16,18 member [3] 24:22,23 31:17 members [2] 16:7 22:10 mentioned [2] 4:9 56:8 merits [4] 12:14 13:12 50:24 53:2 message [2] 21:21 22:1 met [1] 3:21 might [13] 6:20 18:10,11 22:15 26: 9 35:4 49:10 50:20,22 52:17 57: 21 64:22 74:3 migration [1] 45:6 K military [1] 48:19 KAGAN [23] 13:16,19 14:3,17 15: million [2] 32:3 36:16 11,21 16:16 17:8,19,23 18:2,8,22, millions [2] 66:20,20 25 26:10 27:9,15,18,20 50:20 53: minimum [11] 3:16 4:23 7:7,22 8: 22 54:7 70:1 2,18 9:6 29:23,24,25 78:8 Kagan's [1] 23:20 minutes [2] 74:20 75:5 KATYAL [77] 1:22 2:6 38:19,20,22 65:22,23 66:2 77:11 misunderstanding [1] 49:10 40:13 41:5,9 42:2,11 43:21,24 44: listed [1] 9:19 moment [1] 71:13 10,16 45:18 46:11,17,23 47:1,23 lists [3] 77:5,7,14 month [1] 41:1 48:7,25 49:7,15,23 50:2,5,19,21 litigants [1] 26:3 months [1] 48:6 51:9,14,17 52:8,11,15 53:23 54:6, little [2] 6:13 14:1 most [18] 10:18 11:10 13:24 29:9, 13 56:10,13,21 57:22 58:7,11,14 local [1] 28:14 22 34:25 36:11,11 37:12,12,14 52: 60:12,25 61:3,11,14 62:14,25 63: long [3] 4:15 56:24 66:25 21 59:14 61:7 64:13 69:6 70:7 72: 8,12,18,24 64:11,15,18,21 66:1,24 long-term [2] 31:15 59:18 17 67:5,23 68:4,20 70:2,9 71:24 72:1, longer [2] 10:14,19 move [3] 10:7 25:20 72:6 21 73:1,5,11,14 74:21 75:1 look [16] 7:24 26:19 35:18 41:11 moved [1] 62:16 keep [3] 23:23 25:5 42:13 47:13 54:19 61:20,25 65:2,18,19 moves [1] 42:10 KENNEDY [19] 10:11,19,22 20:1, 66:12,18 68:13 70:13 79:17 much [8] 11:20 20:22 28:2 44:4 46: 12,18 22:17 28:13,22 46:15,21,24 looked [7] 5:7,13 6:24 30:20 64:12 5 66:12 70:18 71:11 47:1,18 48:4,8 56:16,22 79:23 79:10,21 multi-agency [3] 3:12 19:18 29: Kennedy's [1] 11:9 looking [1] 68:15 19 kept [1] 26:1 lot [5] 6:12 14:5 16:3 77:9,11 Muslim [19] 3:21 25:15,17 29:8,10, kill [1] 40:8 love [1] 81:13 12 48:24 49:14,17 64:2,4,6,8,9,20 kind [8] 14:20,21 16:9 18:3 19:10 low [1] 9:16 65:6,20 81:10,13 54:10 59:16 70:4 lower [1] 73:18 Muslim-majority [2] 15:5 29:13 kinds [1] 16:2 Lukumi [3] 65:1 67:19 70:16 Muslims [5] 27:12 64:13 66:10,11 King [1] 67:11 81:11 M knock [1] 61:6 must [4] 24:15 31:9 32:3 74:1 made [7] 12:15 14:9,12 28:3 68:1 knows [4] 18:10,16 35:23 78:14 N 81:9,11 L narrow [1] 4:19 main [1] 7:20 land [1] 21:23 nation [1] 59:16 maintain [1] 7:17 language [1] 43:23 national [14] 4:3 5:20 10:5 11:21 majority [6] 3:19,20 25:16,17 29: laptop [1] 49:18 12:9 13:23 17:3 18:1 56:18 70:3,7, 12 48:24 large [1] 59:14 10 80:10 81:17 Mandel [18] 13:21 14:10,13,18,20 later [2] 41:17 59:3 15:7,13,15,18 16:16,19,20,23 17: nationality [7] 39:2,22 40:15,19 latest [1] 62:3 13 20:8,22 25:8 26:18 43:13 58:20 59:10 Laughter [5] 18:5 34:9 42:1 74:22, Mandel's [1] 17:20 nationality-based [4] 60:1,18 78: 25 19 80:14 many [5] 30:11 71:22,22 81:13,13 LAVAS [1] 40:21 mark [1] 28:8 nationals [4] 3:17 40:6,11 44:13 law [4] 31:2 37:18 40:1 74:17 marks [1] 29:3 nationwide [3] 21:4 22:20 72:24 lawfulness [2] 37:21 71:21 naturalization [1] 74:1 material [1] 25:23 laws [2] 4:11 31:6 matter [5] 1:14 19:14 25:6 29:4 72: nature [1] 10:2 layer [1] 5:19 nay [1] 4:16 13 lays [1] 26:25 mayor [1] 28:14 NEAL [3] 1:22 2:6 38:20 learns [1] 8:11 near [1] 73:6 McCreary [3] 15:8 63:1,1 least [1] 12:13 mean [9] 18:17 40:25 48:22 57:12 necessarily [1] 47:9 leave [1] 50:23 necessary [4] 37:7,9 47:20,22 62:7 64:3 67:7 68:2 80:20 left [2] 30:13 65:11 meaning [1] 29:6 need [6] 4:20 17:14 26:19 30:1 31: legality [1] 37:6 18 61:5 means [2] 14:4 65:6 Legislation [3] 39:21 41:19,25 meant [2] 4:21 10:3 needed [7] 3:17,25 4:23 7:7 8:19 legislative [1] 41:15 78:2,8 measures [1] 56:7 legitimacy [1] 25:8 medical [1] 34:19 needs [1] 53:24 negative [2] 21:21 22:3 Neither [2] 7:4 42:10 neutral [6] 15:3 19:20 21:16 25:14 29:20,21 never [7] 35:7 39:2 41:18 50:18 72: 10 75:23 76:5 new [4] 35:10 45:15 57:5 73:7 next [3] 7:1 62:23 63:15 Ninth [2] 25:24 63:20 nobody [2] 34:20 35:23 NOEL [5] 1:19 2:3,9 3:8 75:6 non-immigrant [2] 80:24 81:2 non-politically-correct [1] 69:9 non-reviewability [2] 12:1,14 none [1] 47:14 Nope [1] 69:18 nor [1] 7:5 normal [1] 32:19 nothing [8] 37:15 46:11,19 47:6 49:1 57:5 60:15 77:18 notice [1] 35:22 noticed [1] 30:16 number [11] 15:6 25:19 32:7 34: 13 36:11,12 65:16 67:6 68:21 72: 1 73:19 numbers [2] 32:24 33:1 O oath [3] 28:4,21 29:2 objections [2] 66:8 71:2 objective [4] 61:18 63:22 66:17 70:14 observer [7] 61:18 63:22,25 64:20 66:17 67:1 70:14 observers [1] 18:20 obviously [2] 71:1 73:14 occupations [1] 53:17 occurred [1] 68:17 offer [1] 43:10 office [2] 28:5 36:20 officer [3] 75:20 76:2,7 officers [2] 75:18 79:7 official [2] 70:16 71:5 officially [1] 71:6 often [3] 37:14 72:12 80:9 Okay [11] 31:12 33:21,21 34:10 35: 13 37:16 54:7 61:15 74:21,21 75: 3 omits [2] 3:19 29:12 Once [5] 8:14 13:21 26:17 47:5 80: 17 one [39] 4:11,13 5:20,21 9:15 10: 13 11:4 12:20 13:5,24 16:13 17: 16 22:12 23:11 27:5 29:10 30:13 33:10 35:6 37:1 40:11 42:16 51: 19 60:7 62:12 63:3 64:14 65:14 67:6 68:21 70:25 71:3 72:2 77:6 78:22,25 80:1,11 81:14 ones [3] 5:18 65:3 70:25 only [17] 3:22 4:14 11:16 15:18 21: 10 29:11 31:5 32:7 34:21 35:22 42:16 55:6 61:23 65:5,9,18 68:4 opinion [3] 35:5 56:24 74:7 Opinions [1] 28:5 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 5 Justice - Opinions 87 Official - Subject to Final Review oral [5] 1:14 2:2,5 3:8 38:20 order [31] 9:1 14:11 24:22,25 29: period [3] 4:15 24:1 47:20 President's [8] 3:13 4:4 24:18 38: permanent [1] 45:16 13 41:12 68:24 69:13,21 16,18 30:16,17,21 33:12 37:22 38: permission [1] 5:23 presidential [1] 60:10 24 39:7,18 46:12 47:5,12 48:20 perpetual [4] 44:2 45:19 46:10 48: Presidents [2] 47:14 56:25 3 press [2] 14:1 62:6 53:4 59:13,19 61:8 62:3,4 64:22 pressure [8] 3:24 9:1 10:4 18:12 65:5 68:25 70:19 71:22 74:11 78: perpetuated [1] 44:2 person [6] 42:25 43:3 71:6 75:21 25:19,20 33:11 78:1 2 presumption [1] 27:7 orders [5] 29:14 46:14 47:4,13 69: 78:10,11 personally [2] 51:2 79:3 prevent [1] 53:25 2 persons [1] 51:6 previously [2] 31:14,21 ordinary [1] 70:15 Petitioners [6] 1:5,21 2:4,10 3:9 principal [4] 13:19 33:10 37:4 77: organization [1] 8:12 25 other [29] 3:23 7:5 9:9 10:5 14:9 75:7 principally [1] 29:5 31:15,22 32:18 35:21 41:4 43:17 pick [1] 74:15 private [4] 17:6 28:4,9 61:22 44:22 45:23 47:12 55:2 56:7 58:1 pieces [1] 7:25 64:23 65:1,11,20 67:7,17 69:5,20 place [6] 21:13 23:16 79:2 80:4,8, pro-Christian [1] 21:25 probably [2] 34:12 74:5 71:12 75:2,22,25 16 problem [16] 25:23 34:11 39:6 42: others [2] 9:15 73:16 placed [1] 39:14 15,17 47:24 48:3,10 49:5 53:10 Otherwise [3] 21:21 22:7 75:21 plainly [1] 24:24 ought [1] 48:20 plaintiff [1] 52:17 55:9 57:4,8 69:17 70:21 71:11 out [13] 23:24 25:5 26:25 27:8 28: plaintiffs [2] 21:22 53:1 problems [3] 3:23 25:18 57:13 11 35:14,14 36:16 57:25 61:6 65: please [4] 3:11 30:8 38:23 75:9 proc [1] 16:7 21 66:3 71:20 point [23] 16:21 18:17 29:1 36:5 procedures [1] 58:9 out-of-the-box [1] 18:3 41:7 42:13 43:15 44:4,25 53:3 54: proceeding [1] 50:23 outcome [1] 24:14 10 60:14 65:18 66:3 67:21 68:6 process [27] 5:15,15 8:10 14:5,8, outer [1] 4:20 70:25 73:23 74:8 78:4,19 79:24 14,19 15:1 19:12 26:20 27:1 29: outgrowth [1] 69:2 81:5 17 39:13 57:6 68:7,19 69:7 72:2, over [5] 13:25 16:4 36:13 47:21 80: points [1] 75:11 12 75:15,16,17 78:7,9,14 79:5,8 3 policy [15] 4:3 10:6 12:9 23:16 39: processes [1] 32:19 overall [1] 9:15 1 40:17 43:16 45:16,19,25 50:8 proclamation [55] 3:18 4:2 5:4 7: overwhelmingly [1] 15:9 53:7 63:2 80:9 81:17 24 8:17,21 9:20,22 10:2,12,15,25 owes [1] 27:6 political [1] 12:8 11:10,23 13:11 14:6,15 16:9,13 own [2] 68:8,21 polity [1] 59:18 19:14,15 21:8,13 22:23 26:25 27: poorest [1] 73:21 2,16 29:7 33:11 38:9,12 45:14,15 P population [4] 49:14,17 64:7,10 53:6 55:6 60:18 62:9,22,24 63:10, packed [1] 6:12 position [1] 50:15 25 68:24 69:12,13,21 70:2 74:12 PAGE [6] 2:2 36:12 50:9 54:22 61: possibility [1] 38:4 75:24 76:2,4,5 77:25 79:16 80:21 25 72:4 possibly [2] 21:3 29:10 81:16 palsy [4] 52:2 72:4 76:16 77:6 potentially [2] 20:10,17 proclamation's [1] 4:21 parameters [1] 5:16 power [11] 4:4,18 13:13 44:17 45: proclamations [5] 8:23 10:13 11: Parkinson's [1] 77:6 3 53:5,21 58:3 59:24 67:12 74:13 3 37:14 62:12 PARS [2] 51:23 72:3 practice [1] 21:17 professors [1] 77:8 part [7] 29:22 59:14,14,15,18 61:7 praised [1] 81:14 Program [5] 7:2,5 55:22 56:2 58: 70:8 participated [1] 68:19 particular [15] 10:16 21:14 25:5,6 40:6 44:14 56:6 57:13,14,17,20 58:6 65:21 69:11 76:21 parties [2] 51:3 73:3 parts [1] 76:1 party [1] 52:19 pass [1] 41:12 passed [1] 15:5 past [4] 5:22 8:22 29:14 50:1 people [32] 20:9,13,14 22:2 31:13 32:3,8 34:13 35:3,3,22 36:1,2,4 37:3 42:19 44:13 55:15 59:17 66: 21 67:12 69:20 71:12,18 72:9,17 75:25 77:7,10 80:7,17,24 people's [1] 79:18 percent [6] 40:5 59:12 61:7 64:9 66:11,11 percentages [1] 72:14 perennial [2] 48:10 57:8 perhaps [2] 58:9 70:24 precedential [1] 12:20 precludes [1] 57:2 predominantly [3] 64:4,5,8 preference [2] 45:4 53:16 preferences [1] 53:13 preliminary [1] 26:18 prescient [1] 57:19 prescribed [1] 54:25 present [8] 20:2,6 51:4,7,16 52:5, 6,14 presidency [1] 16:5 PRESIDENT [86] 1:3 3:4,5 4:10, 14 5:9,13 6:3,9,16 7:12 9:3,4 11: 13,13,18,22 13:13 16:1 17:2,5 18: 3,23 23:5,9,20 25:4 27:12,22 35: 11 37:10 38:1,2 40:4,10 41:24 42: 5,8,10,12 44:9,18 45:2 46:25 48:5, 9,19,20,22 49:16 50:6,7,16 53:5,5, 10,18,25 54:4,11,14 56:8,14,20 57: 13 58:2 59:1,24 61:24 62:4,8,15, 19 63:20 68:9,22 69:7,12,18,22,25 70:19 74:12,14 81:6,8 23 77:25 purposes [4] 22:13 33:10 61:6 74: 16 pursuant [2] 8:9 78:13 pursued [1] 21:2 pushes [1] 42:24 put [6] 18:12 23:16 34:24 44:12 65: 22 71:18 puts [5] 16:16,19 68:9,22 73:24 Q qualify qualms [1] 42:5 question [23] 6:12 11:9 17:8 18: [1] 71:19 18,19 30:13 34:4 35:1 38:8 41:14 50:22 51:5 53:23 57:16 60:23 61: 9 62:10 63:7 70:4 71:14 72:22 75: 14 80:3 questions [3] 57:17 75:2,12 quick [1] 75:10 quite [4] 9:22 19:12 32:4 71:2 quotas [1] 60:2 R race [1] 25:6 raise [1] 64:23 raised [1] 12:22 raises [2] 66:5 72:22 rate [1] 15:23 Rather [1] 25:11 rational [3] 17:14,15,21 re-upped [1] 48:1 reach [1] 50:24 reached [1] 53:2 read [8] 4:13 14:18 30:4 34:14 44: 21,21,22 77:3 reading [1] 63:25 Reagan [8] 9:4 10:12 11:3 30:17 35:2,11 37:10 38:1 Reagan's [1] 11:13 real [1] 79:4 real-time [1] 8:5 really [14] 7:20 8:17,21 12:5 14:20 15:15 18:18 43:7 44:13 66:9 71: 16 73:7 75:10 80:20 reason [9] 13:23,24 14:21 21:1,6 32:17 33:7 45:9 68:14 reasonable [8] 18:19 61:18 63:22, 25 64:19 66:17 67:1 70:14 13 39:10 55:23 78:2 reasons [11] 18:10,12 31:14 38:25 provides [1] 7:2 40:13,20 43:25 44:1 64:23 74:2 providing [2] 55:17 58:17 79:18 provision [6] 11:20 49:6 54:12 76: reassessment [2] 46:22 47:3 8,9,22 REBUTTAL [4] 2:8 38:17 75:5,6 provisions [2] 45:7 75:22 receives [1] 28:6 provokes [1] 16:3 recent [1] 5:22 publication [1] 72:11 recently [1] 4:6 publicize [1] 71:17 recognition [1] 81:6 publicized [2] 36:19 37:2 recommendation [3] 15:2 17:25 publicly [1] 65:3 19:19 publish [1] 75:16 recommendations [2] 3:19 16:8 purely [2] 60:17 67:3 recommended [2] 3:14 25:20 purport [1] 45:15 red [2] 50:9 62:1 purports [1] 29:16 reenter [2] 62:24 63:15 purpose [5] 7:21 65:25 70:11,17 promulgated [2] 62:4 63:3 propose [1] 43:12 protect [3] 4:1 24:20 30:1 protest [1] 67:10 provide [8] 3:16,25 9:6 29:23 33: Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 6 oral - reenter 88 Official - Subject to Final Review reexamined [1] 46:16 referring [1] 51:24 reflect [1] 8:22 reflects [2] 4:2 10:1 refuse [1] 24:23 refused [1] 26:2 regard [2] 48:23 73:9 regime [1] 58:24 regularity [1] 27:4 rejected [2] 39:18 43:11 rekindled [1] 61:25 relatively [1] 19:4 relatives [1] 20:14 relief [1] 73:3 religion [6] 21:14,17 25:6 65:17 62:10,21 63:6,9,14 74:19,23 75:4 81:20 robust [2] 43:8 56:14 rule [2] 12:7 74:1 rules [1] 80:11 run [1] 50:6 severe [1] 56:6 shall [2] 16:14 59:9 share [3] 26:2 30:14 73:16 sharing [1] 42:6 she's [1] 8:16 shouldn't [1] 61:20 show [1] 43:1 shows [3] 8:8,14 78:11 side [5] 35:21 43:17 59:22,23 70: started [1] 14:4 starting [1] 16:21 starts [1] 30:13 State [13] 5:24 14:21 39:9 43:4 51: 12,20 55:16,24 58:15 71:7 72:16 75:15 79:6 statement [2] 25:5 36:14 S statements [23] 19:7 28:2,3,11,15, safe [2] 42:13 48:6 17 29:5 50:9 60:6,8,15 61:19,21, safest [1] 7:4 22 62:16,23 63:11 64:1 66:15 67: 24 sake [2] 19:6,9 25 68:1,11,12 sides [1] 77:22 Sale [4] 12:12 52:22,23,23 STATES [20] 1:1,4,16 3:6 31:4 39: significant [2] 28:8 34:13 same [15] 9:20 14:10 28:21 34:7 9 40:7 45:17 46:3 51:11,14 52:18 similar [1] 11:23 35:2,5 39:6,17 52:9 57:4,7 63:2 53:1 55:24 56:5 57:9 58:18 72:5 simply [2] 5:2 81:4 64:25 67:22 69:3 73:22 74:18 since [6] 7:20 19:16 29:11 66:25 sanctions [2] 9:1,25 67:21 70:17 statute [16] 5:3 43:2 44:22 47:18 74:13 79:12 [2] religious [7] 22:3 65:7,15 66:5,6,8, satisfies 13:12 55:7 49:1 50:17 54:2,5 57:3 60:6,8 67: single [2] 55:9 76:13 [3] 17:13,18 39:16 satisfy 2 68:9 70:25 73:9 74:15 22 site [1] 75:17 save [1] 72:5 statute's [1] 49:2 rely [1] 29:5 situation [10] 5:8 24:3 38:10 40: Savings [1] 54:18 statutes [3] 6:18 7:6 47:10 remedy [1] 72:23 10,22 53:1 56:4,12 57:21 59:1 saying [13] 6:3 22:3 40:23 42:4 46: situations [1] 57:14 statutory [4] 5:8 50:22 53:3 54:12 remember [2] 36:14 68:8 10 54:8 62:22 67:20 69:18,19 70: six [1] 48:5 stepped [1] 53:9 removed [2] 41:16 51:1 13 71:2 77:22 sticks [2] 39:22 40:3 repetitive [1] 30:11 slightly [1] 80:22 says [28] 16:2,13 23:4,23 30:22,22 small [5] 25:18 29:22 32:7 53:15 still [2] 47:21 70:23 reply [2] 36:10 54:22 31:7 35:6,22 41:13 46:18,18 47:5, 59:13 stop [2] 40:25 78:22 report [2] 46:18,20 19,25 48:2,11,22 52:19 59:9,21 stopping [1] 22:4 reporting [4] 8:2,3 39:25 47:7 so-called [2] 29:8 45:5 68:25 69:2 70:2 72:9 73:25 77:14 society [1] 66:20 stops [1] 14:22 represent [4] 9:8,13,18 79:4 81:17 Stormans [2] 66:4,13 representing [1] 66:20 software [3] 53:17,19 58:1 scenario [1] 25:3 strike [5] 48:21,21 49:8 67:2 73:9 required [3] 13:2 39:25 47:9 Solicitor [1] 1:19 scheme [2] 55:1,8 strong [3] 15:10 27:7 65:24 requirement [2] 47:8 55:13 solid [1] 40:5 scholars [3] 22:8 34:16 77:8 requires [1] 37:19 solution [4] 39:6 48:14 53:11 55: stronger [2] 14:13 71:1 score [1] 9:16 struck [1] 69:4 resentment [1] 16:4 12 scrutiny [1] 17:14 struggled [1] 67:18 reside [1] 31:16 solutions [1] 54:24 seat [3] 68:23 73:25 74:9 students [2] 22:9 77:11 residence [1] 80:16 solved [1] 53:9 second [9] 12:16 28:25 37:4 39:15 Somalia [2] 9:22 36:2 studying [1] 31:15 residual [1] 42:12 54:24 67:16 68:25 78:3,22 stuff [1] 61:21 resign [1] 24:23 somebody [2] 75:19 80:3 [1] subject [4] 12:10 24:5 76:3,6 respect [13] 9:4,5 21:17 40:18 42: second-guess 70:10 someone [1] 42:3 [1] subjected [1] 9:25 21 43:14 52:4 55:5 56:6 58:17 61: Secondly 25:2 son [1] 20:15 [1] 19:21 secretaries submitted [2] 81:21,23 16 71:10,12 sorry [3] 5:6 34:4 81:7 Secretary [3] 3:14 5:24 71:7 substance [4] 14:14 19:13 27:2 respond [2] 41:6 75:13 sort [1] 57:2 [2] 29:17 Respondents [5] 1:8,23 2:7 21:9 section 54:2 73:24 sorts [1] 53:14 Security [12] 3:13 4:3 10:5 12:9 succeed [4] 20:11 52:10,13,16 38:21 SOTOMAYOR [37] 5:6 6:2,7,20, 13:23 17:3 18:1 70:3,7,10 80:10 successful [2] 4:5 10:9 response [2] 13:20 37:4 23 9:8,17 11:2,7,15 19:24 20:23 81:18 responses [5] 24:17 26:23 32:21 21:12 22:2,6,12,18,25 23:8,14,19, Sudan [1] 29:15 see [8] 6:3 14:19 25:23 32:12 36:5 22 24:1,9,13 25:22 26:6,13,16 63: sufficiently [1] 9:16 36:8,24 44:13 76:25 79:17 responsible [2] 4:11 24:10 23 67:23 68:10 69:16 78:21,25 79: suggest [1] 17:11 [1] 32:8 seek [3] suggested [3] 4:12 5:16 22:17 rest 44:24 54:5 60:10 13,17 seeking [1] 39:7 suggesting [2] 19:17 54:3 restrictions [3] 3:15 6:17 67:9 Soviet [1] 48:12 seeks [1] 8:24 suggestion [1] 68:16 resulted [1] 15:1 space [1] 53:9 seems [5] 27:21 34:12 54:9 57:18 special [2] 5:12 7:2 [3] suggests [1] 72:13 reticulated 45:22 54:25 55:8 65:23 summarizing [1] 23:6 reverse [1] 81:18 specialty [1] 53:16 [2] sunsets [2] 47:5,25 review [10] 3:12 5:19 16:17 19:19 seen 10:8,15 specified [1] 39:5 [1] supervision [1] 47:21 23:23 24:6 29:19 56:17 57:6 69:7 send 35:17 speech [2] 20:8 22:16 sense [6] 8:23 55:12,20,22 70:6 supplant [1] 54:15 reviewability [1] 12:19 speech-type [1] 20:21 74:6 supplement [3] 7:12 44:19 54:14 reviewed [1] 25:24 spoken [1] 62:9 sent [1] 21:25 supplements [1] 47:17 rid [2] 53:14,14 spokesman [1] 62:6 Sentelle [2] 40:20 60:20 support [2] 21:4 22:20 rights [2] 51:3,6 sponsor [3] 43:4 58:16 71:7 sentences [1] 10:14 supported [1] 5:18 rise [1] 72:23 sponsors [3] 39:9 55:16,25 September [1] 81:9 Suppose [3] 8:7 28:13 40:3 risk [2] 17:3 43:3 squarely [1] 43:23 seriously [1] 58:10 supposed [1] 34:21 riskiest [1] 7:9 staff [2] 16:6 61:24 [5] SUPREME [3] 1:1,15 74:5 ROBERTS [37] 3:3 11:25 12:11,21 set 6:5,17 7:16 16:17 27:8 stage [1] 26:18 sets [1] 80:6 13:1 30:7 38:16,19 40:2,24 41:6, stake [1] 70:4 suspect [1] 37:3 [1] 22 42:3 48:18 49:4,12,19,24 50:3 seven 3:22 standard [4] 17:21 19:14 25:9,14 suspend [1] 4:14 [2] 45:23 51:9 several 57:11 58:4,8,12 60:4,23 61:2,9,12 standing [2] 21:20,23 suspicion [1] 24:6 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 7 reexamined - suspicion 89 Official - Subject to Final Review sweeping [3] 44:18 45:3 53:21 Syria [3] 40:6,22 48:21 Syrian [1] 40:11 system [6] 5:8 7:13,14 42:24 45:4 48:16 T t's [1] 16:10 tailored [3] 10:2,3 47:24 talked [1] 71:3 talks [1] 68:6 targeted [1] 49:13 ten [1] 77:5 tens [1] 40:8 terms [5] 5:1 15:15 32:23 33:6 37: 5 terrorism [10] 5:19 8:2 17:17 29: 25 39:10 43:5 55:16,25 58:16 71: 8 terrorist [2] 5:17 8:12 terrorists [2] 31:2 56:5 test [4] 61:17 65:1 67:1 70:15 tests [2] 67:18,21 Texas's [1] 73:23 text [8] 5:2 44:7,23 49:1 59:8 60: 17,21 64:22 textual [1] 43:25 themselves [2] 51:19 61:24 theory [4] 23:4,11,12 49:20 there's [29] 6:12 30:12 32:7,17 33: 22 34:14,15,21 37:15 40:14,14,16 42:7,9,16 43:3 44:4 46:11,18 47:6 48:25 49:5,9 53:16 57:1,4 68:20 77:4,7 therefore [1] 12:10 they'll [1] 71:9 they've [7] 24:13 31:15 34:20 47: 16,17 57:5 72:10 thinking [2] 15:15 70:24 thinks [2] 18:9 35:18 third [7] 39:23 51:2,5 52:19 55:1 69:6 78:18 third-party [1] 51:10 thorough [1] 24:6 though [7] 13:7 17:11 19:9 37:5 42:14 53:23 74:8 thousand [1] 72:17 thousands [1] 40:9 threat [1] 56:4 three [9] 5:11 9:10 29:13 38:25 54: 18,23 55:7 62:5 68:20 three-part [1] 39:6 throughout [1] 17:1 tied [1] 50:8 tiny [1] 15:6 tobacco [1] 45:11 today [2] 3:4 22:25 together [2] 32:3 46:4 tomorrow [3] 62:22 63:9 81:7 took [2] 5:17 38:3 top [1] 64:17 tough [2] 16:25 19:3 tougher [1] 69:8 track [2] 39:20,21 transfer [1] 21:23 transformation [2] 28:9 29:3 transgresses [1] 74:11 transparent [1] 26:25 treatment [3] 31:20 34:19 65:17 tremendous [1] 74:6 trimmed [1] 73:15 troubling [1] 72:23 true [4] 21:18 34:23 46:14 71:15 truly [1] 17:22 TRUMP [3] 1:3 3:4,5 truth [1] 27:8 try [4] 6:13 10:6 58:23 78:4 trying [4] 34:19 41:4 43:12 52:1 turn [3] 13:16 29:1 45:8 turns [3] 71:20 76:2,8 tweeted [2] 62:5 69:8 two [18] 10:14 15:18 24:17 27:25 28:16,24 34:21 35:22,25 36:8,24, 24 40:13,14 54:24 65:9 67:5 72:1 type [3] 20:8 22:16 49:12 types [4] 10:5 21:2,4 57:7 typical [1] 8:23 U U.N U.S [3] 5:25 46:2 66:21 UARG [1] 54:16 ultimate [1] 41:14 unable [2] 41:23 77:15 unconstitutional [1] 24:24 under [20] 4:4,24 8:16 13:13 20:22 [1] 18:14 25:8 27:3 28:5 29:21 38:13 43:1 49:4,6,7,19,21 53:21 71:10 75:22, 25 undermine [2] 25:7 27:16 understand [9] 13:5 15:19 26:8 36:21 37:3 42:12 49:8 52:3 65:13 undo [1] 59:24 undone [1] 59:25 undue [2] 31:4,9 uniform [1] 74:1 Union [1] 48:12 unitary [2] 23:3 69:15 UNITED [20] 1:1,4,15 3:5 31:4 39: 8 40:7 45:16 46:3 51:10,14 52:18 53:1 55:24 56:5 57:9 58:18 72:5 73:22 74:18 universe [2] 80:6,17 universities [1] 77:8 university [3] 20:19,21 51:20 unlawful [1] 38:24 unless [2] 17:21 75:11 unlike [1] 47:12 unpack [1] 6:13 until [1] 4:1 up [10] 7:15,16,16,17 8:8,14 52:24 64:9 76:15 78:11 urge [1] 13:8 uses [1] 39:18 using [1] 67:11 V valid [1] 8:8 validly [1] 78:12 Valley [2] 21:19,22 values [1] 65:14 variant [1] 15:22 variety [1] 66:18 vast [5] 3:19,20 25:16,17 29:11 vehement [1] 16:1 versus [2] 3:6 73:23 vet [1] 3:17 veto [1] 45:8 vetting [18] 5:14,15 7:13,13 39:9, 13 42:23 46:7 48:13,16 57:10,16 58:9,22 68:7 78:7,9,13 videos [1] 62:6 view [2] 28:3 54:13 viewing [1] 61:18 views [1] 46:3 vindicate [1] 51:3 violated [1] 59:8 violates [2] 39:3 60:21 virtually [1] 5:3 virulent [3] 16:12 18:25 62:5 virus [1] 57:25 visa [16] 5:10 7:2,5 8:9,9 36:20 55: 13,14,22 56:2 58:22 59:23 75:19, 20 78:12 79:9 visa-processing [1] 58:1 visas [9] 49:3 59:11,12,15 80:2,12, 24,24 81:2 visit [1] 31:16 visited [1] 5:21 vituperative [1] 28:15 vote [1] 18:13 W Waiver [25] 7:2,5 11:20 33:20,24 wide [5] 49:16 56:22,25 62:20 66: 18 will [3] 38:17 42:12 46:22 Williamson [1] 54:16 willing [3] 19:5,8 52:17 window [3] 35:7,19 79:1 wiped [1] 57:25 within [8] 4:4 13:13 32:4,16 34:11 38:13 43:23 76:4 without [3] 64:1 68:11 70:5 wonder [1] 14:17 word [2] 10:23 31:5 words [2] 14:9 41:4 work [2] 52:4,6 working [1] 65:9 works [2] 8:7 75:15 world [19] 3:20,21 7:4,10 15:3,4,5 19:22 25:14,16,17 26:7 29:12,20, 22 48:6 64:4 73:10 81:15 world's [1] 64:9 worldwide [6] 3:12 14:25 19:18 29:19 57:6 68:7 worrisome [1] 4:9 worry [1] 30:8 wrecking [2] 50:16 74:15 written [1] 38:12 Y yea [1] 4:16 years [2] 48:11 53:5 Yemen [2] 36:2 51:25 Youngstown [2] 41:11 59:6 yourself [1] 66:4 Z zero [3] 53:8 55:23 60:2 37:6,23 38:4,4,4 55:22 56:2 58:22 72:2,7 75:15,16,17,20 76:8,9,18, 22 79:5,8 waivers [6] 5:11 30:23 36:11 72: 10,18 79:11 wanted [1] 69:8 wants [3] 23:15,17 72:5 war [1] 17:17 Washington [3] 1:11,20,22 wavelength [1] 34:7 way [12] 12:20 13:5 18:13,14 23:6 24:2 26:10 43:8 44:21 47:3 67:7 80:22 ways [1] 15:13 weak [1] 72:14 weapons [1] 40:8 web [1] 75:16 Wednesday [1] 1:12 week [3] 23:3 41:1,1 whatever [6] 14:16 23:16 24:4 27: 4 28:18,23 whenever [1] 44:8 Whereupon [1] 81:22 whether [13] 7:6 8:16 14:4 15:7,8 28:1 40:16 47:21 56:18 62:11 75: 21 78:9 80:3 who's [2] 51:25 69:19 whole [3] 7:13 69:14 77:14 Heritage Reporting Corporation Sheet 8 sweeping - zero