Trump v. Hawaii
138 S. Ct. 2392
| SCOTUS | 2018Background
- In Sept. 2017 President issued Proclamation No. 9645 restricting entry from eight countries after a multi‑agency worldwide review (DHS/State/intel) found inadequate identity‑management and information‑sharing that impeded vetting. Waivers, exemptions (LPRs, asylees), and 180‑day reviews were provided; Chad was later removed.
- Plaintiffs (State of Hawaii, individuals with relatives abroad, Muslim Association of Hawaii) challenged the Proclamation as exceeding statutory authority under the INA and as violating the Establishment Clause.
- District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction; Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, holding violations of 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) and §1152(a)(1)(A). Ninth Circuit did not decide the Establishment Clause claim.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari and assumed without deciding that the statutory claims were reviewable; it reviewed (a) scope of Presidential authority under §1182(f) and §1185 and (b) the Establishment Clause claim.
- The Court held the Proclamation falls within the President’s broad §1182(f) suspension power and does not conflict with §1152(a)(1)(A); on Establishment Clause review the Court applied a constrained inquiry (rational‑basis review behind the face of the order) and found plaintiffs unlikely to succeed. The preliminary injunction was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of §1182(f) authority | §1182(f) is a narrow, residual emergency power; Proclamation is overbroad and not a temporary exigency | §1182(f) text gives the President broad, discretionary authority to suspend entry of "any class of aliens" for such period and conditions as he deems necessary | President lawfully acted under §1182(f); Proclamation within textual delegation |
| Conflict with INA (§1152(a)(1)(A)) — nationality discrimination | §1152 forbids nationality‑based discrimination in immigrant visa decisions and thus limits Presidential suspension by nationality | §1152 governs visa issuance; §1182 defines admissibility and allows suspension of entry — statutory scheme distinguishes admissibility from visa issuance | No conflict; §1152(a)(1)(A) does not constrain §1182(f) suspensions of admissibility |
| Justiciability / consular nonreviewability | Challenges to exclusion decisions are nonjusticiable or jurisdictionally barred | Courts can assume reviewability here (and should) | Court assumed without deciding that statutory claims are reviewable and proceeded to the merits |
| Establishment Clause (purpose/animus) | Proclamation driven by anti‑Muslim animus (campaign statements and contemporaneous remarks show primary purpose was religious discrimination) | Policy is facially neutral, grounded in national security and vetting deficiencies; review of national‑security judgments is highly deferential | Under a constrained inquiry (rational‑basis look‑behind), the Proclamation is plausibly related to legitimate national‑security objectives; plaintiffs not likely to succeed on Establishment Clause claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993) (presidential immigration actions historically receive broad deference)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (statutory language granting broad executive discretion may preclude meaningful judicial review)
- Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (when Executive provides a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason for visa denial courts generally will not look behind it)
- Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) (judicial deference to political branches on immigration classifications)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (laws motivated by bare animus toward a class are invalid even under rational basis)
- Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (classifications rooted in irrational prejudice fail rational‑basis review)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (courts should give weight to Executive predictive judgments in national‑security contexts)
- Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (historic precedent on exclusion in national‑security context; Court here repudiates Korematsu as wrongly decided)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for granting preliminary injunction)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (deference to political branches in immigration and foreign affairs)