Trump v. Hawaii

Trump v. Hawaii
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 25, 2018 Decided June 26, 2018
Full case name	Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Hawaii, et al.
Docket no.	17-965
Citations	585 U.S. ___ (more) 138 S. Ct. 2392; 201 L. Ed. 2d 775
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 923 (2018).
Questions presented
Are the plaintiffs’ claims challenging the president’s authority to issue the Proclamation reviewable (“justiciable”) in federal court? Does the president have the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation? Is the global injunction barring enforcement of parts of the Proclamation impermissibly overbroad? Does the Proclamation violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?
Holding
Presidential Proclamation 9645 did not violate the INA or the Establishment Clause by suspending the entry of aliens from several nations. Substantial deference must be accorded to the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs and the exclusion of aliens.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
Concurrence	Kennedy
Concurrence	Thomas
Dissent	Breyer, joined by Kagan
Dissent	Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952; U.S. Const. amend. I
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Korematsu v. United States (obiter dictum)

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case 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 anti-Muslim 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] Legal scholars differ as to whether this statement actually overturned Korematsu or was merely a "disapproving dictum" of it.^[3]