Trump v. Hawaii

Whether President Trump’s Proclamation No. 9645 discriminates on the basis of nationality, is an excessive use of Executive authority, and is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This appeal is related to the third-iteration of President Trump’s “travel ban” (EO-3). See Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017).  Similar to the prior orders, EO-3 prohibits the entry of immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries into the U.S.  In addition, EO-3 bans immigration from North Korea and state officials from Venezuela.  Respondents, the State of Hawaii, were granted a temporary restraining order in federal district court, which converted into a preliminary injunction, on the grounds that EO-3 violated federal discrimination statutes on the basis of nationality.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The Government applied for a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing EO-3 is a valid exercise of the Executive’s authority to act in the interest of national security under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1701.  The Government argues the restrictions by EO-3 are not justiciable, because visa denials are immune from judicial review under 5 U.S.C § 701(a)(1) and United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950).  The Court will also review Respondent’s position that EO-3 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Respondent argues that EO-3 is the “Muslim ban” that President Trump “promise[d] to enact,” and which the Establishment Clause prohibits.