Trump v. Hawaii Case Brief

Facts of the case

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769 (EO-1), which, among other things, suspended entry for 90 days of foreign nationals from seven countries identified by Congress or the Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks. EO-1 was immediately challenged in federal district court, and the judge entered a nationwide temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of several of its provisions. A panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s emergency motion to stay the order pending appeal. Rather than continuing to litigate the matter, the government announced that it would revoke that order and issue a new one.On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,780 (EO-2). Section 2(c) of EO-2 directed that entry of nationals from six of the seven countries designated in EO-1 be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of the order, citing a need for time to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. Section 6(a) directed that applications for refugee status and travel of refugees into the United States under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) be suspended for 120 days from the effective date to review the adequacy of USRAP application and adjudication procedures.Section 6(b) suspended the entry of any individual under USRAP once 50,000 refugees have entered the United States in fiscal year 2017. The effective date of the order was March 16, 2017. EO-2 was subject to swift litigation as well.On June 14, just before Section 2(c) of EO-2 was by its terms set to expire, President Trump issued a memorandum to Executive Branch officials declaring the effective date of each enjoined provision of EO–2 to be the date on which the injunctions in these cases “are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.The government sought review in both cases, making arguments both on the merits of the cases and on procedural issues.In a per curiam opinion issued simultaneously with an order granting certiorari, the Court granted the government’s applications for a stay of the preliminary injunction with respect to Sections 6(a) and (b) of Executive Order 13,780 (EO-2), thereby allowing enforcement of those provisions. Under the Court’s ruling, the government may enforce Section 6(a) except as to any individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,nor may such an individual be excluded under Section 6(b).On September 24, 2017—the same day EO-2 was expiring—President Donald Trump issued a Proclamation restricting travel to the United States by citizens from eight countries. That Proclamation too was challenged in federal court as attempting to exercise power that neither Congress nor the Constitution vested in the president. The Ninth Circuit struck down the Proclamation, and the Supreme Court granted review.

CONCLUSION

The presidential proclamation placing entry restrictions on nationals from eight foreign states was a valid exercise of presidential authority under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(f) where the President found that their entry was detrimental to the United States’ interests [2]-Even if judicial review of those findings was appropriate, the proclamation described the process, agency evaluations, and recommendation underlying the chosen restrictions and made clear that its conditional restrictions remained in force only so long as necessary to address the identified inadequacies and risks within those nations. Although three individuals had standing to challenge the exclusion of relatives under the Establishment Clause , on rational basis review the proclamation was facially legitimate in that it, inter alia, aimed to prevent the entry of nationals who could not be adequately vetted.

  • Advocates: Noel J. Francisco Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for petitioners Neal Kumar Katyal for respondents
  • Petitioner: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
  • Respondent: Hawaii, et al.
  • DECIDED BY:Roberts Court
  • Location: –
Citation: 585 US _ (2018)
Granted: Jan 19, 2018
Argued: Apr 25, 2018
Decided: Jun 26, 2018
Trump v. Hawaii Case Brief