Hawaii v. Trump
265 F. Supp. 3d 1140
D. Haw.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (State of Hawai‘i, individual residents, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii) challenged Proclamation No. 9645 (EO-3), which indefinitely bars or restricts entry/visas for nationals of several countries and was announced Sept. 24, 2017.
- EO-3 follows two prior travel-related executive actions (EO-1 and EO-2) that were litigated and partially enjoined; the Ninth Circuit previously enjoined parts of EO-2 in Hawaii v. Trump and articulated limits on presidential authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
- Plaintiffs sought a nationwide temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h) of EO-3 before it took effect, alleging statutory violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and constitutional claims.
- The State and organizational and individual plaintiffs alleged concrete harms: disruption of university recruitment and programs, family separation, reduced religious association membership, and attendant non-monetary injuries.
- The court evaluated Article III standing, statutory "zone of interests," ripeness, and justiciability, then applied the Winter test for preliminary relief and granted a nationwide TRO enjoining enforcement of the challenged EO-3 sections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs (State, individuals, Association) suffer concrete imminent harms (family separation, university recruitment loss, organizational injury) | Executive argues speculative harms and lack of injury absent an actual visa denial | Court: Plaintiffs have standing; alleged harms are concrete, traceable, and redressable |
| Justiciability / consular-reviewability | INA statutory and constitutional challenges are subject to judicial review | Government invokes consular nonreviewability and deference in national security/foreign affairs | Court follows Ninth Circuit precedent: claims are justiciable and reviewable |
| §1182(f)/§1185 scope (authority to suspend entry) | EO-3 fails to make required findings tying nationality to detriment; categorical nationality bans are overbroad and not justified | Government asserts broad, historically-rooted executive discretion in national-security entry restrictions | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; EO-3 lacks sufficient findings and is an unlawful exercise of §1182(f)/§1185(a) authority |
| §1152(a) nationality discrimination | EO-3 unlawfully discriminates by nationality in immigrant visa issuance, violating INA's non‑discrimination bar | Government: §1152 does not constrain §1182(f) emergency suspension authority; statutes operate separately | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed as to immigrant‑visa discrimination under §1152(a); nationwide relief appropriate for those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) (limits on Presidential exercise of §1182(f) and holding nationality-based suspension may violate INA)
- Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming preliminary relief against earlier EO and addressing standing/justiciability)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Granny Goose Foods v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (purpose of TRO to preserve status quo)
- Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (national security and foreign policy are significant public interests)