Mullin v. Doe · ¶80
We turn now to the merits of Miot respondents’ equal protection claim. The parties dispute the proper standard for assessing this claim. The Government contends that we should apply the deferential test we used in Trump v. Ha waii, 585 U. S. 667 (2018), and it claims that many of the factors that informed the Court’s identification of the proper standard of review in that case are also present here. Brief for Petitioners 46–47. These factors include the Executive’s broad authority over the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals and the connection between immigration policy and foreign relations. Ibid. Miot respondents, on the other hand, urge us to apply heightened scrutiny under Ar lington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252 (1977). In their view, the Hawaii standard applies only to the exclusion of aliens seeking to enter the country, not to those…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.