Trump v. Hawaii

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision on immigration

Not to be confused with Hawaii v. Trump .

2018 United States Supreme Court case

Trump v. Hawaii

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump , which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents . Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by Islamophobic animus .[1]

A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the ban from coming into effect, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and exceeded the president's powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this injunction, ruling that the proclamation was likely a violation of INA; the court of appeals did not reach the constitutional issue.[1]

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 5–4 decision, ruling that plaintiffs did not have "likelihood of success on the merits" on either their INA or their Establishment Clause claims. The court vacated the injunction and remanded the case to lower courts for further proceedings. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts , applied rational basis review and emphasized deference to the executive branch . In addressing the travel ban, the Court also repudiated the infamous decision _Korematsu v. United States _, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), which had justified the president's powers to establish internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II .[1]

In dissent , Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision "redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one gravely wrong decision with another."[1] Responding to her dissent, Roberts wrote: "Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority."[2]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Hawaii&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Executive Orders 13769 and 13780

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Hawaii&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Executive Orders 13769 and 13780")
]

As part of his immigration policy , United States President Donald Trump had sought to limit foreigners from certain countries from traveling into the U.S. On January 27, 2017, he signed Executive Order 13769 (EO 13769), which banned entry to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days regardless of their visa status, and suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. Because the countries affected have large Muslim populations and Trump repeatedly called for banning Muslim immigration during his presidential campaign, EO 13769 was commonly known as the "Muslim ban", and was heavily criticized by many state legislatures and federal lawmakers. Several lawsuits were filed to challenge the order, and in _Washington v. Trump _, heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , a restraining order was placed on enforcement of EO 13769 on February 3, 2017.

On March 6, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13780 (EO 13780), replacing EO 13769 to acknowledge the Ninth Circuit's findings. It did not outright ban travel from citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, but required significant additional scrutiny before they would be able to enter the U.S. and banned new visas for these countries for 90 days. It also suspended USRAP for 120 days.

Hawaii's challenge to EO 13780

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Hawaii&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Hawaii's challenge to EO 13780")
]

Like EO 13769, EO 13780 was immediately criticized and legally challenged in several cases. Of note was a challenge from the State of Hawaii, which formed the basis of the Supreme Court case. Hawaii brought a civil action challenging the executive order on March 7, asking for declaratory judgment and an injunction halting the order.[3] [4] Hawaii moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint pertaining to Executive Order 13780.[5] [6] [7] Doug Chin , Hawaii's Attorney General, publicly said: "This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0. Under the pretense of national security, it still targets immigrants and refugees. It leaves the door open for even further restrictions."[8] Hawaii's legal challenge to the revised ban cited top White House advisor Stephen Miller as saying the revised travel ban was meant to achieve the same basic policy outcome as the original.[9]

The Amended Complaint listed eight specific causes of action pertaining to Executive Order 13780:

1. Violation of the First Amendment 's Establishment Clause claiming the travel ban targets Muslims

2. Violation of the Fifth Amendment 's Equal Protection clause

3. Violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (substantive due process )

4. Violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (procedural due process )

5. Violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 8 U.S.C.  § 1152 (a)(1)(A) and 8 U.S.C.  § 1182 (f) and 8 U.S.C.  § 1185 (a)

6. Violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C.  [§ 2000bb](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/20

…