## Facts

- President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to assess and improve vetting procedures for foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States by creating a baseline for evaluating foreign governments’ information-sharing and identity-management practices.
- The Department of Homeland Security, working with other agencies, conducted a worldwide review and identified countries whose practices were deficient and raised national-security concerns.
- Based on that review and follow-up engagement with foreign governments, the President issued Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 (Sept. 24, 2017), invoking authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (including 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).
- The Proclamation imposed entry restrictions on certain nationals of eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia (with restrictions varying by country and by immigrant/nonimmigrant category).
- The Proclamation stated that the restrictions addressed the government’s inability to obtain adequate information to assess the risks posed by certain applicants and were also intended to encourage affected governments to improve their practices.
- The Proclamation included exemptions and provided for case-by-case waivers in specified circumstances.
- The Proclamation also required periodic reassessment; after the first reporting cycle, restrictions on nationals from Chad were lifted after Chad improved its information-sharing practices.
- The State of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and individual plaintiffs (including U.S. citizens with relatives affected by the restrictions) sued federal officials, alleging the Proclamation exceeded statutory authority under the INA and violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii entered a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Proclamation’s entry restrictions.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the Proclamation likely violated the INA.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether Presidential Proclamation 9645 fell within the President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend entry of classes of foreign nationals when he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
2. Whether the Proclamation conflicted with 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which bars nationality discrimination “in the issuance of an immigrant visa.”
3. Whether the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it allegedly was motivated by hostility toward Islam.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld Proclamation 9645 as a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).
- The Court held that § 1182(f) gives the President broad discretion to suspend entry of “all aliens or any class of aliens” upon a finding of detriment to U.S. interests, and the Proclamation’s findings and structure satisfied that standard.
- The Court rejected the argument that § 1152(a)(1)(A) limited the President’s § 1182(f) power, reasoning that § 1152(a)(1)(A) governs discrimination in immigrant visa issuance, while the Proclamation regulated entry.
- On the Establishment Clause claim, the Court applied a highly deferential review appropriate to admission and national-security judgments and asked whether the Proclamation was plausibly related to a legitimate governmental objective.
- The Court concluded the Proclamation was facially neutral as to religion and was supported by a sufficient national-security and vetting rationale, including the multi-agency review process, country-specific tailoring, exemptions, and a waiver process.
- The Court dissolved the injunction.
- While distinguishing the case from wartime detention, the Court stated that Korematsu v. United States was gravely wrong when decided and has no place in constitutional law.

## Legal Principles

- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), when the President finds that entry of all aliens or a class of aliens would be detrimental to U.S. interests, he may suspend their entry or impose entry restrictions, and courts owe substantial deference in the immigration and national-security setting.
- Section 1152(a)(1)(A) restricts discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas based on nationality, but it does not eliminate the President’s separate statutory authority to suspend entry under § 1182(f).
- For facially neutral entry restrictions involving foreign nationals seeking admission, judicial review is limited; the question is whether the policy is plausibly related to legitimate governmental objectives, not whether a court would reach the same national-security judgment.
- Evidence of hostile statements may be considered, but a facially legitimate, neutral policy will be upheld where it has an adequate justification independent of unconstitutional animus under the deferential standard applied in this context.
- Exemptions, case-by-case waivers, and periodic reassessment provisions can support the conclusion that an entry restriction is connected to stated security and vetting aims.
- Korematsu is repudiated and has no continuing constitutional legitimacy.

## Conclusion

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court held that Proclamation 9645 was within the President’s broad authority under INA § 1182(f), did not conflict with INA § 1152(a)(1)(A)’s rule for immigrant visa issuance, and did not violate the Establishment Clause under deferential review focused on the Proclamation’s facial neutrality and its stated national-security and vetting purposes.


Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018)