State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump
878 F.3d 662
9th Cir.2017Background
- In September 2017 President Trump issued Proclamation 9645 restricting entry and visa issuance for nationals of eight countries (focus here on six Muslim-majority countries) based on a DHS-led review of information‑sharing and identity‑management practices.
- Plaintiffs (State of Hawaii, Ismail Elshikh, two named John Does, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii) challenged the Proclamation under the INA, APA, Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, RFRA, and the Fifth Amendment; district court issued a preliminary injunction; Government appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit was asked to review whether the President exceeded his authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and § 1185(a), failed to make required findings that entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and whether the Proclamation violated 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A)’s ban on nationality‑based discrimination in immigrant‑visa issuance.
- Court held the claims justiciable (rejecting ripeness and absolute consular‑nonreviewability bars), found APA and equitable causes of action available, and determined plaintiffs had standing (including zone‑of‑interests) to challenge the policy.
- On the merits the panel concluded plaintiffs were likely to succeed: the Proclamation exceeded § 1182(f) (when read in context), failed to make the statutorily required findings of detriment, and effectuated nationality‑based discrimination in immigrant‑visa issuance contrary to § 1152(a)(1)(A); the President lacked independent constitutional authority sufficient to sustain the Proclamation.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction in part, narrowed its scope to foreign nationals who have a credible bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity, and stayed further relief pending Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 1182(f): whether President may indefinitely suspend entry of broad classes of nationals | §1182(f) is limited by text, statutory framework, history and practice; Proclamation exceeds delegation | §1182(f) grants broad suspension authority; historical practice and periodic reviews validate the Proclamation | Held for Plaintiffs: §1182(f) cannot be read to authorize an indefinite, sweeping override of the INA; Proclamation exceeds delegated authority |
| Required §1182(f) finding of detriment | President must make a legally sufficient, fact‑based finding that entry of the class would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States" | Proclamation’s stated national‑security rationale and DHS review satisfy the finding requirement | Held for Plaintiffs: Proclamation fails to make the required specific finding tying nationality‑based exclusion to a detrimental interest |
| Nationality‑based discrimination under §1152(a)(1)(A) | Proclamation withholds immigrant visas by nationality, violating the statutory ban on nationality discrimination | §1182(f)/§1185(a) general powers permit restrictions on entry that supersede §1152 or operate in a separate sphere | Held for Plaintiffs: Proclamation effectuates nationality discrimination in immigrant‑visa issuance contrary to §1152(a)(1)(A) |
| Independent constitutional authority (Youngstown framework) | No independent constitutional power to override Congress on immigration; immigration policy lies with Congress | President has plenary foreign‑affairs/national‑security authority to control entry | Held for Plaintiffs: Where presidential action conflicts with Congress’s expressed or implied will, President lacks exclusive constitutional authority sufficient to sustain the Proclamation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) (reviewed presidential use of §1182(f) and confirmed courts may review limits of executive exclusion authority)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA, 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (instructs courts to interpret statutory grants in the context of the whole regulatory scheme)
- Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012) (courts may review challenges to immigration policy and executive action in foreign relations)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson concurrence provides the tripartite framework for assessing executive power vis‑à‑vis Congress)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (executive actions that alter legal rights and duties can be legislative and raise separation‑of‑powers concerns)
- Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (recognizes broad executive authority in national security/foreign affairs but within statutory bounds)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Federal cases upholding review/standing and scope principles cited: Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015) (review of visa denial challenges by U.S. citizens)