Thread: HAWAII V. TRUMP TRAVEL BAN

Hawaii v. Trump

In Hawaii v. Trump, the Supreme Court considered whetherPresident Trump’s travel ban exceeds the President’s delegated powers under theImmigration and Nationality Act and violates the Establishment Clause of theFirst Amendment.


Case Summary


On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an executiveorder that, among other things, banned individuals from Iraq, Iran, Libya,Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – all majority Muslim countries – fromentering the United States. On March 6,2017, President Trump issued a second order, which made a number of minorrevisions, but continued to discriminate against and target Muslims.

A federal district court in Hawaii issued preliminaryinjunctive relief preventing enforcement of Trump’s revised order, and theTrump Administration sued. CAC filed afriend-of-the court brief on behalf of members of Congress urging the court ofappeals to affirm the district court’s decision, and the court of appeals didso. The Trump Administration asked theSupreme Court to hear the case. The Court agreed to do so and partially stayedthe injunction pending appeal.

CAC again filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf ofmembers of Congress urging the Justices to strike down Trump’s Muslim ban, butbefore the Court could hear oral argument, President Trump issued a thirdtravel ban that placed varying levels of travel restrictions on citizens ofeight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, andYemen. Because the new order superseded the old one, the Supreme Court removedthe case from its oral argument schedule and sent it back to the court ofappeals with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaintchallenging the third travel ban and sought injunctive relief. The Hawaii district court issued apreliminary injunction enjoining the new order, which the Governmentappealed. (The Supreme Courtsubsequently stayed the injunction pending disposition of the Government’sappeal and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari ifit ultimately filed such a petition.)

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of membersof Congress in the Ninth Circuit in support of the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the districtcourt’s preliminary injunction and held that the President once again exceededthe scope of his authority under the INA. The Government asked the SupremeCourt to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and it agreed to do so.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of membersof Congress in support of Hawaii. Our brief first argued that the President’ssweeping order exceeds the President’s delegated powers under the Immigrationand Naturalization Act and violates our Constitution’s system of separation ofpowers. The order writes discriminationinto our nation’s immigration laws, ignoring Congress’s carefully chosen,specific criteria for excluding from our country persons suspected of terroristactivity and flouting Congress’s prohibition on nationality-baseddiscrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. The President’s powers, though broad, do notpermit him to supersede immigration laws enacted by Congress that he dislikes.

Second, as our brief also explained, even if the order didfall within the President’s delegated authority – which it does not – it wouldviolate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which forbids laws thattarget a disfavored religious minority for discriminatory treatment. As history shows, the Framers were familiarwith colonial religious establishments that tried to keep out disfavoredreligious believers. The First Amendmentdenies the federal government the power to write this kind of religiousdiscrimination into law. Because thePresident’s latest order, like its predecessor, is infected by anti-Muslimanimus, it violates the First Amendment.

In a 5-4 decision,the Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban.

In a powerful dissent,Justice Sotomayor, writing for herself and Justice Ginsburg, wrote that “[t]heUnited States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religiousliberty” and that “the Court’s decision . . . fails to safeguard thatfundamental principle.” She further explained that “Congress has alreadyerected a statutory scheme that fulfills the putative national-securityinterests” the government used to justify the ban. In closing, she stated that“our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing tohold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legalcommitments” and that the Court’s decision “repeats tragic mistakes of thepast and denies countless individuals the fundamental right of religiousliberty.”

PUT EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA ON THE TRAVEL BAN NOW!!!

KEEP THEM OUT!

NO CARAVAN, NO ASYLUM!

BREEDING IN POVERTY AND VIOLENCE IS NOT ASYLUM!

WE HAVE THAT HERE...WE HAVE THAT ALL OVER THE WORLD!

THEY ARE NOT SPECIAL...NO FREE PASS!

WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE WORLDS PROBLEMS!

GO HOME AND STAY HOME!

Yes, absolutely! Stop all travel for immigration purposes between the US, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Or implement Judy's Plan B!