Trump v. Hawaii

President Donald Trump (defendant) sought to improve the vetting procedures for persons entering the United States by identifying deficiencies in the information available from foreign governments regarding nationals seeking entry. He ordered federal agencies to develop a risk-assessment baseline. He then had the Department of Homeland Security evaluate the information available from foreign governments worldwide and identify countries whose information-sharing practices were deficient and therefore presented a national-security concern. Based on the results of that assessment, Trump issued a proclamation that placed entry restrictions on nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. He purported to do so by invoking his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The proclamation stated that the restrictions were necessary to prevent the entry of persons about whom the United States lacked sufficient information. The intent was to encourage the foreign countries to adopt more favorable practices. The proclamation directed the Department of Homeland Security to continually assess the situation and report every 180 days whether the restrictions should continue and, if so, whether any modifications were necessary. After the first cycle, restrictions were lifted on nationals from Chad because Chad had improved its information-sharing practices. The State of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and three persons with foreign relatives impacted by the restrictions (plaintiffs) brought suit, arguing that the proclamation violated the INA. They also argued that it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it was motivated by animus toward Muslims. The trial court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the entry restrictions. The court of appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.