Looking for:
Trump v hawaiiTRUMP v. HAWAII | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - Case Timeline
Trump v. Hawaii - Ballotpedia - SCOTUSblog Coverage
Applicants are directed to file a reply on or before 12 p. Supplemental brief of applicants Donald J. Response to supplemental brief of respondents Hawaii, et al. Reply of applicants Donald J. In addition, application 16A is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari.
In addition to the issues identified in the petitions, the parties are directed to address the following question: "Whether the challenges to Sec. Opinion per curiam. Detached Opinion. The due dates for the briefs on the merits in and are as provided for by Rule 25 of the Rules of this Court.
Motion for clarification filed by petitioners Donald J. Response to motion for clarification due on or before 12 p. Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party from counsel for the petitioners. Response to motion for clarification from respondents Hawaii, et al. Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief of Former National Security Officials in opposition to motion for clarification filed.
Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief of Law Professors in opposition to motion for clarification filed. Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief of Members of Congress in opposition to motion for clarification filed. Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief of States of New York, et al. Reply of petitioners Donald J.
Application 17A of Donald J. Application 17A granted by The Chief Justice to file a consolidated petitioners' brief on the merits and a consolidated reply brief on the merits in excess of the word limits. Motion to add John Doe as a party filed by respondents Hawaii, et al.
Joint appendix filed 3 volumes. Brief of petitioners Trump, President of U. Brief amicus curiae of Professor Victor Williams filed. Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed. Motion for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument filed by respondents. Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. Brief amici curiae of Hardwired Global, et al. Brief amicus curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in support of neither party filed.
Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed. Brief amicus curiae of Zionist Organization of America filed. McCarthy, et al. Brief amici curiae of Citizens United, et al. Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Foundation for Moral Law.
Corrected brief to be submitted and filed. Brief amici curiae of 36 Appellate Lawyers filed. Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Branch Officials filed. Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. Motion of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in support of neither party for enlargement of time for oral argument and for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. Brief amici curiae of Civil Rights Organizations filed.
Brief amici curiae of Labor Organizations filed. Brief amici curiae of Mickey Edwards and Einer R. Elhauge filed. Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.
Brief amici curiae of PEN America, et al. Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee filed. Brief amici curiae of Retired Generals and Admirals of the U.
Armed Forces filed. Brief amici curiae of Tahirih Justice Center, et al. Brief amici curiae of Eblal Zakzok, et al. Brief amici curiae of International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. Brief amicus curiae of Japanese American Citizens League filed. Trump filed. Brief amici curiae of Colleges and Universities filed.
Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts Scholars filed. Brief amici curiae of Janet A. Napolitano, et al. Brief amicus curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation filed. Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Immigration Law filed. Brief amici curiae of Certain Immigrant Rights Organizations filed. Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed. Brief amicus curiae of New York University filed. And for Venezuela, which refuses to cooperate in information sharing but for which alternative means are available to identify its nationals, the Proclamation limits entry only of certain government officials and their family members on nonimmigrant business or tourist visas.
The Proclamation exempts lawful permanent residents and foreign nationals who have been granted asylum. It also provides for case-by-case waivers when a foreign national demonstrates undue hardship, and that his entry is in the national interest and would not pose a threat to public safety.
The Proclamation further directs DHS to assess on a continuing basis whether entry restrictions should be modified or continued, and to report to the President every days.
Upon completion of the first such review period, the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Homeland Security, determined that Chad had sufficiently improved its practices, and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals. Plaintiffs in this case are the State of Hawaii, three individuals Dr. The State operates the University of Hawaii system, which recruits students and faculty from the designated countries.
The three individual plaintiffs are U. The Association is a nonprofit organization that operates a mosque in Hawaii. Plaintiffs challenged the Proclamation—except as applied to North Korea and Venezuela—on several grounds. Plaintiffs further claimed that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it was motivated not by concerns pertaining to national security but by animus toward Islam. The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the entry restrictions.
The Government requested expedited briefing and sought a stay pending appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a partial stay, permitting enforcement of the Proclamation with respect to foreign nationals who lack a bona fide relationship with the United States.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Knauff v. Shaughnessy , U. According to the Government, that principle barring review is reflected in the INA, which sets forth a comprehensive framework for review of orders of removal, but authorizes judicial review only for aliens physically present in the United States. See Brief for Petitioners 19—20 citing 8 U. The Government made similar arguments that no judicial review was available in Sale v. The Court in that case, however, went on to consider on the merits a statutory claim like the one before us without addressing the issue of reviewability.
Auburn Regional Medical Center , U. The INA establishes numerous grounds on which an alien abroad may be inadmissible to the United States and ineligible for a visa. Congress has also delegated to the President authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens in certain circumstances.
The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings—following a worldwide, multi-agency review—that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. Reagan , F. Based on that review, the President found that it was in the national interest to restrict entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information—both to protect national security and public safety, and to induce improvement by their home countries.
Plaintiffs believe that these findings are insufficient. They argue, as an initial matter, that the Proclamation fails to provide a persuasive rationale for why nationality alone renders the covered foreign nationals a security risk. That premise is questionable. See Webster v. Contrast Presidential Proclamation No.
But that does not mean that the President is required to prescribe in advance a fixed end date for the entry restrictions. In fact, not one of the 43 suspension orders issued prior to this litigation has specified a precise end date. To that end, the Proclamation establishes an ongoing process to engage covered nations and assess every days whether the entry restrictions should be modified or terminated. Indeed, after the initial review period, the President determined that Chad had made sufficient improvements to its identity-management protocols, and he accordingly lifted the entry suspension on its nationals.
See Proclamation No. Brief for Respondents Neither argument justifies departing from the clear text of the statute. The President, they say, may supplement the INA, but he cannot supplant it. And in their view, the Proclamation falls in the latter category because Congress has already specified a two-part solution to the problem of aliens seeking entry from countries that do not share sufficient information with the United States.
First, Congress designed an individualized vetting system that places the burden on the alien to prove his admissibility. Second, instead of banning the entry of nationals from particular countries, Congress sought to encourage information sharing through a Visa Waiver Program offering fast-track admission for countries that cooperate with the United States.
The INA sets forth various inadmissibility grounds based on connections to terrorism and criminal history, but those provisions can only work when the consular officer has sufficient and sufficiently reliable information to make that determination. The Proclamation promotes the effectiveness of the vetting process by helping to ensure the availability of such information.
Plaintiffs suggest that the entry restrictions are unnecessary because consular officers can simply deny visas in individual cases when an alien fails to carry his burden of proving admissibility—for example, by failing to produce certified records regarding his criminal history. But that misses the point: A critical finding of the Proclamation is that the failure of certain countries to provide reliable information prevents the Government from accurately determining whether an alien is inadmissible or poses a threat.
Unless consular officers are expected to apply categorical rules and deny entry from those countries across the board, fraudulent or unreliable documentation may thwart their review in individual cases. And at any rate, the INA certainly does not require that systemic problems such as the lack of reliable information be addressed only in a progression of case-by-case admissibility determinations. Nor is there a conflict between the Proclamation and the Visa Waiver Program.
DHS, U. Visa Waiver Program Apr. Nor did Congress attempt to determine—as the multi-agency review process did—whether those high-risk countries provide a minimum baseline of information to adequately vet their nationals. Brief for Respondents 31, 36, 50; see also Tr. Given the clarity of the text, we need not consider such extra-textual evidence. United States ex rel. Rigsby , U. Brief for Respondents 39— If anything, the drafting history suggests the opposite. See NLRB v. SW General, Inc.
Plaintiffs also strive to infer limitations from executive practice. Even if we were willing to confine expansive language in light of its past applications, the historical evidence is more equivocal than plaintiffs acknowledge.
Presidents have repeatedly suspended entry not because the covered nationals themselves engaged in harmful acts but instead to retaliate for conduct by their governments that conflicted with U. Order No. And while some of these reprisals were directed at subsets of aliens from the countries at issue, others broadly suspended entry on the basis of nationality due to ongoing diplomatic disputes.
The more ad hoc their account of executive action—to fit the history into their theory—the harder it becomes to see such a refined delegation in a statute that grants the President sweeping authority to decide whether to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, and for how long. As an initial matter, this argument challenges only the validity of the entry restrictions on immigrant travel. Its restrictions come into play at two points in the process of gaining entry or admission [ 4 ] into the United States.
Second, even if a consular officer issues a visa, entry into the United States is not guaranteed. Sections f and a 1 A thus operate in different spheres: Section defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States and therefore eligible to receive a visa. Knight v. Commissioner , U.
Common sense and historical practice confirm as much. Proclamation No. See Exec. The entry restrictions in the Proclamation on North Korea which plaintiffs do not challenge in this litigation would also be unlawful. Nor would the President be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic confined to a single region, or a verified terrorist threat involving nationals of a specific foreign nation, or even if the United States were on the brink of war.
See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. Because we have an obligation to assure ourselves of jurisdiction under Article III, we begin by addressing the question whether plaintiffs have standing to bring their constitutional challenge.
One of the essential elements of a legal case or controversy is that the plaintiff have standing to sue. Perry , U. Spokeo, Inc. Robins , U. Schempp , U. That is an issue here because the entry restrictions apply not to plaintiffs themselves but to others seeking to enter the United States. We need not decide whether the claimed dignitary interest establishes an adequate ground for standing.
The three individual plaintiffs assert another, more concrete injury: the alleged real-world effect that the Proclamation has had in keeping them separated from certain relatives who seek to enter the country. See ibid. Laroe Estates, Inc. See Kerry v.
We therefore conclude that the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the exclusion of their relatives under the Establishment Clause. Valente , U. Plaintiffs believe that the Proclamation violates this prohibition by singling out Muslims for disfavored treatment. Brief for Respondents 69— That statement remained on his campaign website until May One week after his inauguration, the President issued EO—1.
Show me the right way to do it legally. More recently, on November 29, , the President retweeted links to three anti-Muslim propaganda videos. The President of the United States possesses an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.
Our Presidents have frequently used that power to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded. Twohig ed. Eisenhower, June 28, , p. And just days after the attacks of September 11, , President George W.
Bush, Vol. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.
In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself. The case before us differs in numerous respects from the conventional Establishment Clause claim. Unlike the typical suit involving religious displays or school prayer, plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad. Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof.
The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office. Diaz , U. Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U.
In Kleindienst v. The principal dissent suggests that Mandel has no bearing on this case, post, at 14, and n. Lower courts have similarly applied Mandel to broad executive action. See Rajah v. Mukasey , F. Ziglar v. Abbasi , U. Mathews , U. We need not define the precise contours of that inquiry in this case.
A conventional application of Mandel , asking only whether the policy is facially legitimate and bona fide, would put an end to our review. But the Government has suggested that it may be appropriate here for the inquiry to extend beyond the facial neutrality of the order. See Tr. For our purposes today, we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review.
See Railroad Retirement Bd. Fritz , U. Given the standard of review, it should come as no surprise that the Court hardly ever strikes down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny. Moreno , U. In one case, we invalidated a local zoning ordinance that required a special permit for group homes for the intellectually disabled, but not for other facilities such as fraternity houses or hospitals.
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. And in another case, this Court overturned a state constitutional amendment that denied gays and lesbians access to the protection of antidiscrimination laws. The Proclamation does not fit this pattern. But because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification.
The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. See 8 U. The Proclamation, moreover, reflects the results of a worldwide review process undertaken by multiple Cabinet officials and their agencies.
But as the Proclamation explains, in each case the determinations were justified by the distinct conditions in each country. As for Iraq, the Secretary of Homeland Security determined that entry restrictions were not warranted in light of the close cooperative relationship between the U.
It is, in any event, difficult to see how exempting one of the largest predominantly Muslim countries in the region from coverage under the Proclamation can be cited as evidence of animus toward Muslims. Yet a simple page count offers little insight into the actual substance of the final report, much less predecisional materials underlying it. See 5 U. More fundamentally, plaintiffs and the dissent challenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom.
They suggest that the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security interests. Waterman S. Wald , U. First, since the President introduced entry restrictions in January , three Muslim-majority countries—Iraq, Sudan, and Chad—have been removed from the list of covered countries. Second, for those countries that remain subject to entry restrictions, the Proclamation includes significant exceptions for various categories of foreign nationals.
The policy permits nationals from nearly every covered country to travel to the United States on a variety of nonimmigrant visas. These carveouts for nonimmigrant visas are substantial: Over the last three fiscal years—before the Proclamation was in effect—the majority of visas issued to nationals from the covered countries were nonimmigrant visas.
Brief for Petitioners The Proclamation also exempts permanent resi- dents and individuals who have been granted asylum. Third, the Proclamation creates a waiver program open to all covered foreign nationals seeking entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants. According to the Proclamation, consular officers are to consider in each admissibility determination whether the alien demonstrates that 1 denying entry would cause undue hardship; 2 entry would not pose a threat to public safety; and 3 entry would be in the interest of the United States.
The Proclamation also directs DHS and the State Department to issue guidance elaborating upon the circumstances that would justify a waiver. Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v.
United States , U. Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26— The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.
We express no view on the soundness of the policy. The Court's decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. Justice Sotomayor took issue with a perceived double standard that the Court held with the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission , U. She wrote that "Unlike in Masterpiece , where the majority considered the state commissioners' statements about religion to be persuasive evidence of unconstitutional government action, the majority here completely sets aside the President's charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant".
Sotomayor further noted the parallels between this case and Korematsu , acknowledging the legacy of that decision and the cautions that the dissenting judges there had made towards the threat to the Constitution as a result. Although she welcomed that the majority opinion had effectively jettisoned Korematsu , she feared the decision of Trump "redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one 'gravely wrong' decision with another. After the Supreme Court decision, various protests were held around the United States, including one in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.
Jump to content Navigation. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. In other projects. Wikimedia Commons. On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. Go to top. Contents move to sidebar hide. Article Talk. Read Edit View history. More Read Edit View history. President Trump's travel ban by several states. Supreme Court of the United States. This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings.
Retrieved June 28, Retrieved September 10, Archived from the original on July 31, The History Channel. Archived from the original on August 26, The Washington Post. NPR published March 9, The New York Times. The Boston Globe. March 15, Archived from the original PDF on March 17, NBC News. The Guardian. March 17, Associated Press. March 29, Fox News. March 30, The Los Angeles Times. May 15,
Comments
Post a Comment