Trump v. Hawaii

In 2017, President Donald Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, restricting entry into the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. The State of Hawaii and individual plaintiffs sued, arguing the travel ban exceeded the President's authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by disfavoring Islam. Lower federal courts blocked the ban, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari. On June 26, 2018, the Court issued a 5-4 decision in favor of the administration. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, holding that the Proclamation fell within the President's broad statutory discretion to suspend entry and was facially neutral, thus not running afoul of the Establishment Clause. The ruling emphasized judicial deference to executive national security assessments.

The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in a 5-4 ruling, reversing lower court injunctions. It found the Proclamation within the President's delegated power and concluded it did not violate the Establishment Clause because it was facially neutral and justified by national security concerns.

Whether Presidential Proclamation 9645 exceeded the President's statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and whether it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by discriminating against Muslims.

The decision affirmed expansive executive authority over immigration and entry, reignited debates over religious discrimination and national security, and provoked widespread public protest. It underscored deep partisan divisions and set a precedent for judicial deference to presidential assessments in matters of border control.