Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

Presidential Proclamation 9645

Trump’s travel ban restricting entry from 8 countries, mostly Muslim-majority

8 U.S.C. §1182(f)

Grants the President broad power to suspend entry of aliens if detrimental to U.S. interests

INA

Immigration and Nationality Act, the core federal immigration statute

Facial neutrality

A policy that does not discriminate on its face (text doesn’t mention religion, race, etc.)

Rational basis review

Court upholds law if it is plausibly related to a legitimate government purpose

Establishment Clause

Plaintiffs alleged that the travel ban violated this by targeting Muslims

Kleindienst v. Mandel

Case establishing the “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” test for visa denials

Facially legitimate and bona fide reason

The reason for a government action must be valid and given in good faith

National security justification

The government’s stated reason for the travel restrictions in the Proclamation

Roberts majority

Upheld the ban as within presidential authority under §1182(f)

Sotomayor dissent

Compared the travel ban to Korematsu and accused it of anti-Muslim bias

Waiver process

Allowed case-by-case exceptions, used as evidence of neutrality by the majority