Trump v. Hawaii
United States Supreme Court
128 S.Ct. 2080, 201 L.Ed.2d 403, 585 U.S. ___, 201 L.Ed.2d 775 (2018)
President Donald Trump (defendant) signed an executive order suspending the entry of foreign nationals from seven countries for 90 days. Each country had been previously identified by Congress or prior administrations as posing heightened terrorism risks. A federal district court entered a temporary restraining order blocking the restrictions. In response, the President signed a similar executive order, which was also challenged in court. Several district courts issued preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the entry suspension. The appeals courts upheld the injunctions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The temporary restrictions expired before the Court could act, so the Court vacated the lower decisions as moot. President Trump then ordered federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every country’s compliance with the United States’s risk-assessment baseline. Based on this evaluation, the President issued a proclamation seeking to improve vetting procedures by identifying deficiencies in the information needed to assess whether nationals from particular countries presented public-safety threats. The proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign countries. The countries were selected by the President because their systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals were deemed inadequate. The State of Hawaii (plaintiff) brought suit, arguing that the proclamation violated provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the act). Hawaii also argued that the proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it was motivated by animus toward Islam. The trial court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the entry restrictions. The appeals court affirmed the decision. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)
Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.