Trump, President of U.S. v. Hawaii

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 19 Jan 2018

1. The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prohibit or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation's interest. Exercising that authority after a worldwide review by multiple government agencies of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information to screen their nationals, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27, 2017). In accordance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security following the multi-agency review, the Proclamation suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by- case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors. The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Proclamation's entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries. The court of appeals affirmed, except as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The courts concluded that the Proclamation likely violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The questions presented are:
2. Whether respondents' challenge to the President's suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable.
3. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President's authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad.
4. Whether the global injunction is impermissibly overbroad.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court case Trump, President of U.S. v. Hawaii (2017) revolved around the legality of Proclamation No. 9645, also known as the "travel ban," issued by then-President Donald Trump in September 2017 which restricted entry into the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen on national security grounds. The State of Hawaii challenged this proclamation arguing that it violated both immigration law and First Amendment's Establishment Clause by discriminating against Muslims. In a 5-4 decision announced in June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban stating that it was within presidential authority under Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend or restrict entry when deemed detrimental to national interest; hence not violating immigration law as argued by Hawaii. Regarding violation of First Amendment's Establishment Clause claim made by Hawaii based on some statements made during campaign trail about banning Muslims from entering US; court held these statements were not sufficient enough to prove religious hostility behind proclamation since text itself is neutral towards religion & applies equally irrespective of faith.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In the dissenting opinion for Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision failed to safeguard the principle of religious neutrality embedded in the First Amendment. She contended that President Trump's travel ban was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rather than national security concerns, as evidenced by his public statements both during and after his presidential campaign. The dissent also criticized the majority for ignoring historical precedent set by cases such as Korematsu v. United States, where wartime hysteria led to a violation of constitutional rights against racial discrimination. According to Justice Sotomayor and her co-dissenters, this ruling allowed an unjust policy based on religious animosity towards Muslims under a veil of national security justification.