Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – Comprehensive Bullet-Point Study Notes

Key Participants

  • Petitioners: Donald J. Trump (President of the United States) & executive-branch officials, including the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. These parties argued that the Proclamation was a legitimate exercise of presidential authority to protect national security, falling within the broad powers granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act. They emphasized the review process and findings as evidence of a well-researched, non-discriminatory policy.

  • Respondents: State of Hawaii, three U.S. persons with affected relatives (Dr. Ismail Elshikh, John Doe #1, John Doe #2), & the Muslim Association of Hawaii. These parties challenged the Proclamation based on statutory and constitutional grounds, arguing it exceeded presidential authority, was discriminatory, and violated the Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims.

  • Lower Courts Involved:

    • U.S. District Court (D. Haw.): Issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, halting the Proclamation's implementation. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly regarding statutory authority and potential discriminatory intent.

    • Ninth Circuit: Affirmed the District Court's injunction primarily on statutory grounds, questioning whether the President's actions strictly adhered to the framework of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    • Fourth Circuit (parallel litigation in IRAP v. Trump): Also issued an injunction, but primarily focused on the constitutional challenge, finding that the Proclamation evinced anti-Muslim animus.

  • Supreme Court Line-up
    • Opinion of the Court: Roberts, C.J., joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch. This majority opinion reversed the lower court's injunction, upholding the Proclamation. The Court applied a highly deferential standard to the President
    s national security determinations and found that the Proclamation was within the scope of §1182(f)\S 1182(f) and was not a violation of the Establishment Clause. The majority concluded that the Proclamation was issued based on legitimate national security concerns after a thorough review process.
    • Concurrences:
    - Kennedy: Emphasized the constitutional duties of officials and the importance of religious tolerance, while still affirming the President's broad authority in immigration and national security contexts. He noted that the political branches have extensive authority but must exercise it in adherence to the Constitution, particularly the Establishment Clause.
    - Thomas: Critiqued the proliferation of universal injunctions, arguing they extend beyond the specific parties in a case and create undue burdens on the executive branch, effectively allowing a single judge to block nationwide policy.
    • Dissents:
    - Breyer (joined by Kagan): Focused on the ineffectiveness and lack of transparency of the waiver system established by the Proclamation, suggesting that its practical application contradicted the stated goals of flexibility and individual assessment. He raised concerns that the Proclamation's broad enforcement without functional waivers rendered it arbitrary.
    - Sotomayor (joined by Ginsburg): Argued forcefully that the Proclamation was overtly motivated by anti-Muslim animus, citing the President's public statements and the policy's historical context. She drew a direct parallel to Korematsu v. United States (1944), suggesting the Court was sanctioning discriminatory policy under the guise of national security, and accused the majority of ignoring the evidence of religious discrimination.

Chronological Background

  • January 27, 2017 – EO-1: Executive Order 13769 (“Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry”) — Imposed a 90-day entry ban on individuals from seven Muslim-majority nations (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen) and a 120-day refugee pause. This order faced immediate legal challenges and was extensively halted by the W.D. Wash. and subsequently affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, leading to its withdrawal. The speed of its implementation and lack of clear process raised significant legal and public opposition.

  • March 6, 2017 – EO-2: Executive Order 13780 (revision of EO-1) — Reduced the number of countries to six (Iraq was removed due to revised information-sharing agreements), maintained the 120-day refugee pause, and made other minor modifications to address legal concerns, such as explicitly exempting lawful permanent residents. Despite revisions, it was preliminarily enjoined by lower courts, which still found issues with its scope and perceived intent. The Supreme Court partially stayed the injunction in Trump v. IRAP, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), allowing portions of the ban to take effect on individuals without a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States, thereby providing a temporary, limited implementation.

  • Worldwide Inter-agency Review (DHS, State, IC): Conducted during the 90-day pause period, this comprehensive review involved the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and various intelligence community components. It aimed to identify countries with inadequate information-sharing practices that posed risks to U.S. national security, creating a standardized, objective framework for assessment.
    • Created information-sharing & risk-assessment baseline: Defined three key metrics for assessing foreign governments' willingness and ability to provide information deemed necessary for U.S. national security:
    - Identity-management protocols: Whether countries issue reliable passports, collect biometrics, and share identity data on their citizens.
    - National-security intelligence sharing: The extent to which countries share information related to terrorism and criminal activity with the U.S.
    - Terrorism/return-rate indicators: The level of terrorist presence and the country's willingness to accept deported nationals from the U.S.
    • 50-day diplomatic engagement window: Following the baseline assessment, countries identified as deficient were given a period to improve their practices and engage diplomatically with the U.S. to avoid restrictions.

  • September 24, 2017 – Proclamation 9645: On September 24, 2017, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, titled “Enhancing National Security and Minimizing Risks from Terrorist Travel by Imposing Additional Travel Restrictions.” This proclamation replaced the expiring EO-2 and implemented indefinite travel restrictions on varying degrees for nationals of eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela) based on the findings of the worldwide inter-agency review. It included a waiver process for individuals demonstrating undue hardship, though the effectiveness of this process was later challenged in court. Notable exclusions from previous orders in this proclamation included Iraq (removed in EO-2) and Sudan.

  • June 26, 2018 – Supreme Court Ruling (Trump v. Hawaii): The Supreme Court issued its decision, reversing the lower court injunctions and upholding the Proclamation. The Court found that the President had lawfully exercised his broad authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and that the Proclamation did not violate the Establishment Clause.