Trump v. Hawaii - Wikipedia

The Nugget

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the Travel Ban) did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Establishment Clause, upholding the validity of the ban under the president's authority.

Make it stick

🏛️ The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban, citing the president's broad authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
🧕 The ban was not found to violate the Establishment Clause as national security was deemed a sufficient justification for the limitations.
🏆 The decision put an end to the infamous Korematsu ruling that justified Japanese internment camps during World War II.
🤔 The Court emphasized the legality of the ban under rational basis review and the deference owed to the executive branch in matters of foreign affairs.

President Trump's actions to limit travel from certain countries led to legal challenges and revisions to Executive Orders 13769 and 13780.
Hawaii challenged the bans, leading to a legal battle that culminated in the Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court upheld the Travel Ban (Presidential Proclamation 9645) by ruling it did not violate the president's authority or the Establishment Clause.
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the president's broad authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act in determining entry restrictions.
The Court also overruled the infamous Korematsu ruling, disavowing its constitutionality in the context of the travel ban decision.

Justices Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, arguing for further review of the ban and highlighting concerns over religious neutrality.
Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority for what she saw as a failure to address anti-religious bias in the ban.

"The decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns." - Justice Sotomayor
"The notion that one can demonstrate animus [ill will] toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed." - Judge Derrick Watson
"The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here." - Chief Justice Roberts
"The Court's decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns." - Justice Sotomayor
"Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality." - Ninth Circuit appeal ruling on the original Executive Order

This summary contains AI-generated information and may be misleading or incorrect.