Monday, June 25, 2018
The Supreme Court always waits to the end of the Term to release opinions in the blockbuster cases that divided the Court. Today, at 10 a.m. EST, which marks the beginning of the last week of the Term, the Court will be releasing decisions. Watch SCOTUSblog for the latest.
The Court already has decided several immigration cases (Sessions v. Dimaya; Jennings v. Rodriguez; Pereira v. Sessions). But one major case remains that could affect the way that the Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of immigration laws. The Court will decide the lawfulness of the third iteration of the "travel" or "Muslim ban" barring admission into the United States from a group predominantly of Muslim-majority nations.
Trump v. Hawaii challenged President Donald Trump’s September 2017 executive order, which barred travel to the United States by citizens of eight countries: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela and Chad. Like the two similar orders that preceded it, the September 2017 order drew immediate legal challenges. The state of Hawaii levels two main challenges to the travel ban: (1) Although the president has broad power over immigration, the order goes too far; and (2) the order violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, which bars the government from (among other things) favoring one religion over another. In making its arguments, the state relies on the two earlier versions of the order, which targeted only Muslim countries, as well as comments and tweets made by President Trump calling for a ban on the entry of Muslims into the United States.
The issues before the Court:
(1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable;
(2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad;
(3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and
(4) whether the executive order violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.