Microsoft Word - Trump vs Hawaii Brief.docx



Trump vs HawaiiFacts: The Petitioner is President Trump and the Respondents are the State of Hawaii and 3 individuals. Presidential Proclamation 9645 (Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into The US By Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats) placed entry restrictions on the nationals of 8 foreign nations whose systems for managing and tracking information about their citizens was deemed inadequate by the President. Hawaii challenged that the Proclamation was in violation of the Immigration & Nationality Act, as well as a violation to the Establishment Clause.Procedural History: The District Court and Ninth Circuit Court both affirmed an universal injunction that the President had exceeded his expressed powers which was then appealed by Trump. The United States Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.Issues:Does Proclamation 9645 violate §1182(f) and §1152(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration & Nationality Act?Do the Plaintiffs have the authority to challenge the Establishment Clause?Does Proclamation 9645 violate the Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment?Does the Supreme Court have the authority to consider the statutory claims under the doctrine of consular non-reviewability?Holding:No. It does not violate §1182(f) because the only limitation of the President’s power is that he must find that the entry of aliens he wishes to exclude would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” which was satisfied because of the multi-agency review process that he had ordered for each country. It does not violate §1152(a)(1)(A) because it only prohibits nationals from being admitted to the United States and is not prohibiting their ability to obtain a visa.Yes. The individuals do have standing to raise the challenge of the Establishment clause because “a person’s interest in being united with his relatives is sufficiently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article 3 injury in fact.”No. The Proclamation is not Anti-Muslim and therefore could not be in violation of the Establishment clause.The Chief Justice Roberts noted that the doctrine was not jurisdictional and assumed without deciding that the plaintiff’s statutory claims are reviewable and proceeded on that basis.Judgment: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.Legal Reasoning: Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch§1182(f) of the Immigration & Nationality Act has “broad discretion” to suspend the entry into the United States. Proclamation 9645 was a result of a multi-agency review conducted by various government officials and doesn’t exceed any statutory power. §1152(a)(1)(A) does not limit the President’s authority to block the entry of foreign nationals. Kleindienst v Mandel only asks if the policy is “facially legitimate and bona fide.” Roberts noted that historically §1152(a)(1)(A) was never treated as a constraint to §1182 and cites various executive orders that also suspended entry based on nationality.Kleindienst v Mandel and Kerry v Din – both held that citizens have standing to challenge violations of their personal rights if they may have been caused by the Government’s exclusion of foreign nationals.Majority stated that it “hardly ever strikes down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny” and concluded that it had two legitimate purposes – “preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted” and “inducing other nations to improve their practices”. Majority noted that the countries effected by the Proclamation only cover 8% of the world’s Muslim population and mentioned that religion was never mentioned in the Proclamation.Sale v Haitian Centers Council, Inc. considered on the merits of a statutory claim without addressing the issue of reviewability.Concurring Opinion: Justice KennedyRomer v Evans – that a government action may be subject to judicial review to determine if it is “inexplicable by anything but animus” referencing animosity to a religion.Court’s decision was not endorsing the President’s infamous statements from before and during his presidency.Concurring Opinion: Justice ThomasU.S. v Verdugo-Urquidez – that foreigners can’t challenge the Establishment Clause.Universal injunctions are questionable and threatened to adjudicate the federal court’s authority to issue them if they continue to do so.Dissenting Opinion: Justice Breyer and Justice KaganQuestions if the exemption and waiver programs are being followed through.Remands the case to the District Court and keep the injunction until issue is resolved.Dissenting Opinion: Justice Sotomayor and Justice GinsburgAccused court of ignoring facts, using the wrong level of scrutiny and using the incorrect precedent.The Proclamation should fail under rational basis scrutiny because the President quoted it would be “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.”Claims precedent is Korematsu vs United States and that the “Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and replaces one wrong decision with another.”Relation To Other Cases/Precedent: Trump v Hawaii upheld the executive’s plenary power to suspend entry of foreigners into the United States. This was a broad interpretation of the precedent, Kleindienst v Mandel and further expanded the area of the executive’s permissible actions. This would be in Box D of the Van Geel Chart because both cases upheld executive plenary powers.Source of Law: Article 3, Section 2; Kleindienst v Mandel; §1182(f) and §1152(a)(1)(A) from the Immigration & Nationality Act from the United States Code.Striking Down(Kleindienst v Mandel)U ldingExecutive power over immigrationExecutive power over immigrationI(A)(Up)II (B)( Up/Ill(C)()IV (D)Expanding Area of Permissible Actions (Up/Up)NarrowofPrecedent{Trump vs Hawaii)BroadofPrecedent ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download