Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

What was the main issue in Trump v. Hawaii

Whether the President’s Proclamation restricting entry of nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries violated the Constitution or the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What was the name of the executive order challenged in Trump v. Hawaii

Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, also known as the “travel ban.”

Which President issued the proclamation at issue

President Donald J. Trump.

What section of the Immigration and Nationality Act did the President rely on to issue the travel restrictions

8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens when deemed detrimental to U.S. interests.

What was the stated purpose of the travel restrictions in the proclamation

To protect national security by ensuring foreign governments meet baseline information-sharing and vetting standards.

Which countries were included in the final version of the travel ban

Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

Which part of the INA did challengers argue the proclamation violated

8 U.S.C. §1152(a)(1)(A), the nondiscrimination clause prohibiting discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas.

What was the Supreme Court’s holding in Trump v. Hawaii

The Court upheld the proclamation, ruling that it was within the President’s statutory authority and did not violate the Constitution.

Which Justice wrote the majority opinion

Chief Justice John Roberts.

What standard of review did the Court apply to evaluate the proclamation

Rational basis review.

What did the Court conclude about the President’s authority under §1182(f)

That the statute grants broad discretion to the President to suspend entry of aliens if deemed in the national interest.

What reasoning did the Court give to reject the constitutional challenge based on religious discrimination

The Court found the policy was neutral on its face and justified by national security, not religious animus.

Which First Amendment clause was central to the constitutional challenge

The Establishment Clause.

What test did the challengers argue should be applied to assess religious discrimination

The Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman.

Why did the Court reject applying the Lemon test to the proclamation

Because it involved immigration and national security, areas where courts give greater deference to the Executive.

What did the Court say about the President’s campaign statements about Muslims

The Court acknowledged them but gave more weight to the proclamation’s official justifications and process.

What kind of procedural review preceded the issuance of the proclamation

A multi-agency worldwide review of information-sharing and vetting practices of foreign governments.

What role did the Department of Homeland Security play in the proclamation

It conducted the country-by-country assessment that formed the basis for the travel restrictions.

What key quote summarizes the majority’s deference to the President

“The President has inherent authority to protect national security and control the entry of aliens abroad.”

Which Justice filed a concurring opinion emphasizing statutory interpretation

Justice Kennedy.

Which Justice filed a concurring opinion defending the proclamation as facially neutral and valid

Justice Thomas.

What did Justice Thomas criticize in his concurrence

The nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts and the broader use of universal remedies.

Which Justices dissented in Trump v. Hawaii

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

What concern did the dissent raise about the travel ban’s process

That the facial neutrality was a pretext and the underlying motivation was anti-Muslim animus.

What quote did Justice Sotomayor compare the decision to in her dissent

She compared it to Korematsu v. United States, criticizing the majority for upholding discriminatory policies under the guise of national security.

What did the majority opinion say about Korematsu v. United States

It explicitly disavowed and overruled Korematsu, but said the travel ban case was entirely different.

What was the significance of the Court’s discussion of §1152(a)(1)(A)

The Court held that the nondiscrimination clause applies only to the issuance of immigrant visas, not entry suspensions under §1182(f).

Why did the Court uphold the President’s authority despite the nondiscrimination clause

Because §1182(f) gives the President separate authority to suspend entry based on national interest.

What remedy were the plaintiffs seeking in this case

To block enforcement of the proclamation and invalidate the travel restrictions as unconstitutional and unlawful.

What role did the State of Hawaii play in the lawsuit

It was one of the lead plaintiffs, alleging harm to its universities, residents, and economy.

What was the vote split in the Supreme Court decision

5–4 in favor of the government.

Why did the Court emphasize deference in the area of immigration

Because foreign affairs and national security are primarily within the authority of the political branches.

What did the Court say about tailoring and rationality of the proclamation

That it was sufficiently tailored and justified by legitimate national security objectives.

What did the dissent argue about the proclamation’s lack of neutrality

That it failed to treat all religions equally and was rooted in anti-Muslim bias.

How did the majority respond to allegations of anti-Muslim intent

By pointing to the inclusion of non-Muslim countries like North Korea and Venezuela and the neutral policy language.

What quote from the proclamation did the Court highlight as justifying the policy

That the travel restrictions were imposed only on countries failing to meet baseline security standards.

What broader precedent did the Court rely on to defer to the executive in immigration

Kleindienst v. Mandel and the principle of consular nonreviewability.

How did the decision in Trump v. Hawaii impact presidential power

It reaffirmed broad executive authority under §1182(f) to restrict entry of noncitizens.

What aspect of executive process did the Court find persuasive

The interagency review and classified reports justifying the list of countries affected.

Why did the Court find rational basis review appropriate

Because the case involved national security and immigration, not a suspect classification or fundamental right.

What did Justice Kennedy caution in his concurrence despite agreeing with the majority

That the judiciary must remain vigilant where constitutional rights are at stake and ensure executive discretion is not abused.

What did the proclamation require of countries to be removed from the list

That they provide sufficient information and cooperate with U.S. security vetting.

How did the Court treat the proclamation’s review and waiver provisions

As evidence of a reasoned and flexible policy rather than a blanket ban.

What was one of the main policy criticisms raised by the plaintiffs

That the travel ban disproportionately targeted Muslim-majority countries and stigmatized Muslims.

What did the Court ultimately say about the facial neutrality of the proclamation

That it was sufficient to survive rational basis review regardless of the President’s past statements.

What did the dissent say about the President’s past statements

That they clearly revealed an unconstitutional motive and could not be ignored.

Why did the Court distinguish Trump v. Hawaii from Korematsu

Because Korematsu involved explicit racial classifications, whereas the travel ban was facially neutral and justified on national security grounds.

What did the Court say about courts' roles in reviewing immigration policy

That courts should not second-guess the President’s national security judgments when supported by a facially legitimate justification.

What was the practical result of the decision

The travel ban remained in effect and the President’s authority under §1182(f) was upheld.