Trump v. Hawaii
138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President has broad statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry of any class of aliens if he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. A facially neutral presidential proclamation related to national security will be upheld against an Establishment Clause challenge so long as it is plausibly related to a legitimate government objective.
Facts:
- During his presidential campaign and as president-elect, Donald Trump made numerous public statements calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
- Shortly after taking office, President Trump issued Executive Order 13769 (EO-1), which suspended for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
- After EO-1 was blocked by courts, President Trump revoked it and issued Executive Order 13780 (EO-2), which temporarily restricted entry from six of the original seven countries and directed a worldwide review of foreign governments' information-sharing practices.
- After EO-2's temporary restrictions expired, and upon completion of the worldwide review, the Department of Homeland Security provided recommendations based on a 'baseline' of identity-management and information-sharing standards.
- Based on these recommendations, President Trump issued Proclamation 9645, which placed varying entry restrictions on nationals from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, and Yemen), citing national security risks and inadequate vetting information.
- The Proclamation included a process for case-by-case waivers and a requirement for periodic review every 180 days to assess whether restrictions should be modified.
- The State of Hawaii, along with individuals like Dr. Ismail Elshikh who had foreign relatives affected by the Proclamation, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii, challenged the policy.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Hawaii, three individuals, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii sued President Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, challenging Presidential Proclamation 9645.
- The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, finding the Proclamation likely violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
- The U.S. government, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's injunction, holding that the Proclamation exceeded the President's authority under the INA but did not reach the Establishment Clause claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Presidential Proclamation 9645, which restricts entry for nationals of several countries, exceed the President's statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act or violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The Proclamation does not exceed the President's statutory authority or violate the Establishment Clause. The President lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted under § 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows him to suspend the entry of aliens whenever he finds their entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' The Proclamation was the result of a worldwide, multi-agency review that found nationals from the designated countries could not be adequately vetted, satisfying the statutory prerequisite. The Proclamation does not conflict with the INA's non-discrimination provision, § 1152(a)(1)(A), which applies to visa issuance, not admissibility. On the constitutional claim, the Court applies rational basis review, upholding the policy because it is plausibly related to the government's legitimate national security interests, independent of any religious animus suggested by the President's extrinsic statements. The Proclamation is facially neutral toward religion, and the policy is justified by the findings of the worldwide review, the inclusion of exceptions and waivers, and the ongoing review process.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion in full but wrote separately to emphasize that government officials, even when exercising broad discretion free from judicial scrutiny, have a solemn duty to adhere to the Constitution. He stressed that the First Amendment's guarantees of religious freedom are an urgent necessity and that officials must uphold them in all actions, including in the sphere of foreign affairs, to show the world that the U.S. government remains committed to liberty.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion but wrote separately to argue that § 1182(f) sets forth no judicially enforceable limits on the President's inherent authority to exclude aliens. He also expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim and the authority of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, arguing they are a recent development inconsistent with traditional limits on equitable relief and Article III powers.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan, argued that the case should be sent back to the lower courts to determine whether the Proclamation's system of exemptions and waivers is being applied in good faith. Evidence suggests the waiver process may be a sham, with very few waivers being granted, which would undermine the government's national security justification and strengthen the claim of anti-Muslim animus. If the waiver system is not functional, the Proclamation's lawfulness is significantly weaker, and it more closely resembles a 'Muslim ban' rather than a security-based measure.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. The Proclamation is unconstitutional because a reasonable observer would conclude it was motivated by anti-Muslim animus, violating the Establishment Clause. The majority opinion ignores the overwhelming evidence of the President's intent, including his campaign promise of a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' and numerous other statements. By applying a watered-down rational basis review and accepting a superficial national security justification, the Court repeats the tragic mistakes of Korematsu v. United States, turning a blind eye to government-sponsored discrimination and failing to safeguard the fundamental principle of religious neutrality.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters presidential authority in the realms of immigration and national security, establishing a high bar for challenging executive actions in these areas. By applying a highly deferential rational basis standard to an Establishment Clause claim concerning a facially neutral national security policy, the Court makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to succeed based on extrinsic evidence of discriminatory animus, such as a president's campaign statements. The ruling signals that as long as the executive branch provides a 'facially legitimate and bona fide' national security reason for an entry restriction, courts are unlikely to look behind that justification. This precedent will likely shield future executive actions on immigration from rigorous judicial scrutiny, concentrating power in the executive branch on matters of border control.
Unlock the full brief for Trump v. Hawaii