Facts - University of Texas at Austin



Trump v. Hawaii (2018)FactsPresident Trump issued proclamation No. 9645, which sought to improve vetting procedures for foreign nations attempting to enter the United States. The proclamation placed entry restrictions on those from eight different countries. The President deemed the systems of managing and sharing information about their nationals inadequate and a threat to the safety of the US. The DHS was to continue monitoring the nations and report when/if the restrictions should be reevaluated. The President invoked his authority under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 and§1185 to create the Proclamation.Three individuals from Hawaii with foreign relatives affected by the entry restrictions and the Muslim Association of Hawaii argued the Proclamation violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs argued the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause because it was motivated not by concerns of safety, but of animosity toward Islam.Procedural HistoryThe District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, which barred the restrictions ordered in the proclamation from taking effect. In 2017 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed this judgement, ruling that the proclamation violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.IssuesAre the plaintiffs’ claims challenging the President’s authority in the proclamation reviewable by the Supreme Court?Does the President have the power to suspend the entry of aliens into the US?Does the Proclamation violate the Establishment Clause?HoldingThe Court assumed without answering the question of justiciability.Yes, the President acted lawfully with the power vested in him under §1182 of the INA.The plaintiff’s did not successfully demonstrate that the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause.JudgementThe Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decisionLegal Reasoning Robert’s majority:§1182 plainly grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens when detrimental to the United States, going so far as to grant the authority to determine whether and when, who, for how long, and on what conditions to suspend entry. TheDHS findings have proven that entry from the mentioned countries present a threat to the safety of the United States. Plaintiffs claim that these findings are not enough to prove that entry “would be detrimental” to the nation. However, the Proclamation thoroughly details findings and recommendations of multiple agencies, and it the most detailed Proclamation issued by a President under §1182.Plaintiffs also argue that the Proclamation violates §1152. However, §1152 applies only to visa issuance, not admissibility, which is what the Proclamation addresses.Roberts then goes on to address the plaintiff’s claims that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause.Plaintiffs argue that the Proclamation serves not to protect national security but to discriminate against Muslims. On the campaign trail Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trump also has referred to his Proclamation as a “Muslim ban.” The Court has taken these statements into account and nonetheless rules that the Proclamation is facially neutral toward religion.Kennedy’s concurrence: Agrees, adding that government officials must adhere to and protect the liberties guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution in all their actions.Thomas’ concurrence: Agrees, adding that there are several more problems with the plaintiff’s claim than just those addressed in the majority. Also writes of his skepticism of the authority of District Courts to impose universal injunctions as the lower court did in this case.Breyer and Kagan’s dissent: Argue that the Proclamation does have evidence of an antireligious bias based on heartbreaking anecdotal evidence of people being denied visas because of the Proclamation, and statements made by the President himself.Sotomayor and Ginsburg’s dissent: In considering whether something violates the Establishment Clause, the Court asks whether a reasonable observer would view the action as disfavoring a religion. The Dissent argues that the Proclamation fulfills this requirement based on the history and nature of President Trump’s remarks. The Dissent cites a statement made by Trump in 2017, calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” After signing the Proclamation, Trump later told the media that Christians would be given priority in entrance to the United States as refugees. The majority incorrectly writes the issue before them is “not to whether to denounce these offensive statements.” These statements are undoubtedly tied to the Proclamation and prove religious bias. For “no matter how many officials affix their names to it, the Proclamation rests on a rotten foundation.” Ties the case to Korematsu v. United States, which allowed the imprisonment of Japanese in internment camps after World War II.Relation to Other Cases/PrecedentKleindienst v. Mandel (1972)The Court ruled that through the Immigration and Nationality Act, the executive has power and authority to limit immigration so long as it used its power on the basis of a facially legitimate reason.Korematsu v. United States (1944)Court ruled that the executive order requiring Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps did not show racial prejudice but was necessary in protecting the United States.In both Korematsu and Trump, the Court upholds the power of executive orders to take the necessary steps in order to defend the safety of the United States for non-racially biased reasons. Because of this, the comparison would fall into box D. of the Van Geel chart.Source of LawEstablishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”8 U.S. Code § 1182 and §1185 “for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the US except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe”INA §1182 authorizes the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens whenever he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. §1152 states that “no person shall be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download