Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Trump v. Hawaii

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Trump v. Hawaii
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argued: April 25, 2018
First order: October 24, 2017
Second order: December 4, 2017
Decided: June 26, 2018
Outcome
Ninth Circuit reversed
Vote
5 - 4


Trump v. Hawaii is a U.S. Supreme Court case during the October 2017 term that affirmed the executive's broad power over immigration matters.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: On September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a presidential proclamation outlining new travel restrictions for individuals traveling from eight different countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The proclamation replaced two earlier executive orders that also imposed travel restrictions. Plaintiffs who had challenged those earlier orders amended their suit to include the September 2017 order. The Supreme Court issued a stay that prevented lower courts' injunctions against the order from going into effect while the appeal was pending. On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's ruling enjoining the September 2017 order from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit issued an injunction against part of the order, concluding that the president had exceeded his authority.
  • The issues: Does the revised executive order restricting immigration from six countries and setting a cap on refugees seeking admission into the United States violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Does the revised executive order exceed the president's authority to regulate immigration? Is the order reviewable by the court?
  • Outcome: On a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not show likelihood of success on the merits because the order fell within the president’s broad power over immigration matters. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.[1]


    • Why it matters: The court's decision affirmed the president’s authority over immigration matters and national security. Reviewing immigration law and presidential authority over immigration, Chief Justice John Roberts observed that “[t]he Proclamation does not exceed any textual limit on the President's authority” and that the president has "broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States."[1][2]

    You can review the lower court's opinion on Trump's March executive order here.[3]

    You can review the lower court's opinion on Trump's September executive order here.[4]

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Read more about the administrative state on Ballotpedia.

    This page is about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Donald J. Trump et al. v. the State of Hawaii et al. For a more detailed account of the executive orders issued by the government and challenged by the respondents in this case, please see the following pages:

    On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769, (hereafter, EO-1). EO-1 was entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The order suspended entry into the United States for individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for a period of 90 days. EO-1 also suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days while the process was reviewed for additional national security measures that could be implemented. The admission of Syrian refugees was suspended indefinitely. On February 4, 2017, a nationwide temporary restraining order was issued by Judge James Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington prohibiting the government from enforcing Section 3 and Section 5 of EO-1. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the government's motion to stay Judge Robart's order pending appeal. The government opted not to challenge Judge Robart's order further and announced that a revised order would be coming from the president.[1]

    On March 6, 2017, the president issued a revised executive order, Executive Order 13780 (hereafter, EO-2). The state of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh, the respondents, had filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging Trump's January executive order. They amended their suit to challenge Trump's March order. The respondents alleged that the order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the order "was motivated not by any concerns pertaining to national security, but by animus towards Islam."[1] They also argued the law was in violation of provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. On March 15, 2017, Judge Derrick Kahala Watson issued a nationwide temporary restraining order preventing government enforcement of the order. On March 30, 2017, Judge Watson converted his temporary order into a permanent injunction prohibiting government enforcement of Section 2 and Section 6 nationwide. The government appealed Judge Watson's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1]

    While that appeal was pending, on May 25, 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its judgment in a related case challenging provisions of Section 2(c). In that case, the court upheld a federal district court order preventing government enforcement of Section 2(c), which allowed for the temporary suspension of foreign nationals entering the United States from six countries for a period of 90 days. On June 1, 2017, the government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's decision. In that petition, the government further requested that the court issue a partial stay of Judge Watson's order pending the government's appeal before the Ninth Circuit and, depending on the outcome of Ninth Circuit decision, to also consider the application for a stay as a petition for certiorari before judgment.

    On June 12, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit composed of Judges Michael Hawkins, Richard Gould, and Richard Paez issued a per curiam opinion upholding much of Judge Watson's injunction. The panel found that in issuing the executive order, President Trump exceeded the president's broad authority over immigration. President Trump did not "make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" the order stated. The court found that the executive order also violated provisions of the law that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and that President Trump did not follow the process outlined in federal law for setting a limit on the admission of refugees.[3] The panel, however, reversed Judge Watson's order to the extent that it prohibited the executive branch from conducting an internal executive review of certain procedures related to its immigration application and decision processes.[3]

    U.S. Supreme Court ruling - June 26, 2017

    On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in which the court issued a partial stay of Judge Watson's order. The court ruled that Section 2(c), the 90-day ban from six specific countries, could "not be enforced against any foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States ... the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2."

    With regard to Judge Watson's order related to Section 6(a) and 6(b)—specifically, the provisions allowing the government to suspend certain refugee admissions and to establish a cap on refugee admissions at 50,000—the court's order prevented government enforcement of those sections toward anyone seeking admission as a refugee if the refugee could establish a bona fide relationship with a person or an entity in the United States as defined above. Further, the court permitted the admission of refugees with bona fide relationships even if the resulting number of refugees exceeded the government's cap on refugee admissions.

    However, in the absence of establishing a bona fide relationship, the government was permitted to enforce Sections 2 and 6 of EO-2 in all other instances.

    The court's order granting a partial stay also served to issue a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit.[1]

    Application for stay granted

    See also: Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project

    On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing an application for a stay pending appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the supervising justice of the Ninth Circuit, which Justice Kennedy submitted to the court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the president's application for stay in part and granted certiorari on June 26, 2017, consolidating arguments in the case with arguments in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project. Arguments in the case were scheduled for October 10, 2017, but on September 25, 2017, the court removed arguments in the case from the court's calendar pending a further order from the court.[5]

    Third executive order on September 24, 2017

    On September 24, 2017, Trump issued his third executive order on immigration, revising his March order. The plaintiffs in Trump v. Hawaii amended their lawsuit to include a challenge to this third executive order.

    Supreme court order on October 24, 2017

    On October 24, 2017, the court issued a summary disposition in the case in which the court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit as to Trump's March order and remanded the matter back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

    Lower courts' intermediate rulings on Trump's September executive order

    The plaintiffs asked for a temporary injunction to stay the effect of Trump's September executive order while the litigation was pending. On October 20, 2017, the federal district judge ruled in their favor, and the government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit upheld a partial injunction, and the government again appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    Supreme court order on December 4, 2017

    On December 4, 2017, the supreme court stayed the district court's October 20 ruling, allowing the entirety of Trump's September executive order to go into effect while the case is pending.[6]

    Ninth Circuit ruling on December 22, 2017

    On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's ruling enjoining the September 2017 order from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit issued an injunction against part of the order, concluding that the president had exceeded his authority.[7]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "1. Whether respondents' challenge to the President's suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable.
    2. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President's authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad.
    3. Whether the global injunction is impermissibly overbroad.

    In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue Question 3 presented by the brief in opposition.

    3. Whether Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause"[5]

    Oral argument

    Oral argument in the case was held on April 25, 2018.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    On a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, concluding that the plaintiffs could not show likelihood of success on the merits and were therefore not entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.[1]

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the majority, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

    Focusing its decision on the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the court concluded that the plaintiffs could not show likelihood that they would succeed on the merits in the case (plaintiffs must show they are likely to succeed on the merits in order for a court to grant a preliminary injunction) because the order fell within the President’s broad power over immigration matters. Reviewing immigration law and presidential authority over immigration, Roberts wrote, “The Proclamation does not exceed any textual limit on the President's authority.” The plaintiffs had argued that the proclamation was motivated by religious animus and argued that the President’s other public statements about immigration and Islam supported their case. Roberts ruled that while the court may consider those arguments, the court “will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” He concluded, “Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.”[1]

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented from the court’s ruling. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that she believed the plaintiffs had demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits. She wrote, “The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts [and] misconstruing our legal precedent . . . Whatever the merits of plaintiffs’ complex statutory claims, the Proclamation must be enjoined for a more fundamental reason: It runs afoul of the Establishment Clause’s guarantee of religious neutrality.”[1]

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 United States Supreme Court, "Trump v. Hawaii Opinion," June 26, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content
    2. ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban," June 26, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "State of Hawaii; Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump et al." June Order, June 12, 2017
    4. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "State of Hawaii; Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump et al." November Order, November 13, 2017
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, ''Trump v. Hawaii Question Presented," January 19, 2018
    6. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "State of Hawaii; Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump et al." December 4 Order, December 4, 2017
    7. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Trump v. Hawaii," December 22, 2017
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Trump v. Hawaii, argued April 25, 2018
    9. ↑ 17-965 l5gm.pdf Supreme Court of the United States, Byrd v. United States, argued April 25, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trump_v._Hawaii&oldid=9180361"