Trump's Travel Ban Faces New SCOTUS Test, as Justices Grant Review
The justices will likely hear arguments this spring in the case Trump v. Hawaii. Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal represents the state.
January 19, 2018 at 02:23 PM
4 minute read
A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it will decide whether the Trump administration's latest order banning certain foreign nationals from entering the United States is unconstitutional and also violates federal immigration law.
The justices will likely hear arguments this spring in Trump v. Hawaii. In the case, the government defends the so-called travel ban 3.0, which denies or suspends entry of foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Somalia. The government contends the immigration order is the result of a multi-federal agency review of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information to screen their nationals.
Besides deciding whether the travel ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the justices ordered both sides to brief whether the ban violates the First Amendment's establishment clause. Hawaii has argued that the ban also discriminates on the basis of religion.
The administration sought high court review following a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court held that a key section of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants broad authority to the president, but generally does not permit the president to “impose entry suspensions of unlimited and indefinite duration.”
The appellate court ruled the executive order failed to support its conclusion that allowing the entry of those foreign nationals “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” It also held that a section of the immigration law prohibiting discrimination of the basis of nationality in the issuance of immigrant visas was a constraint on the president's authority.
The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 had allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, pending either the appeals court ruling or the justices' decision on whether to grant review. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, in his petition seeking high court review, argued: “By prohibiting the President from denying entry to those aliens on that basis, and preventing the President from using the entry suspensions to encourage the deficient countries to improve their practices, the courts below have overridden the President's judgments on sensitive matters of national security and foreign relations, and severely restricted the ability of this and future presidents to protect the nation.”
Hawaii, represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal, countered, “No prior president has attempted to implement a policy that so baldly exceeds the statutory limits on the President's power to exclude, or so nakedly violates Congress's bar on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas.”
If the high court endorses the government's “staggering and limitless” view of the president's power, Katyal warned, the president “could end the family-preference system, revive the national origin quotas Congress abolished a half century ago,” or “shut the borders entirely based on nothing more than his view that the country admits too many foreign nationals.
A federal district court in Maryland also blocked the travel ban's implementation, except as to nationals of Venezuela or North Korea or persons without “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The government appealed that ruling to the Fourth Circuit, which, sitting en banc, heard arguments on Dec. 8. The appellate court has not yet ruled.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Not a Regulatory Gray Area’: CFTC Secures $5M Settlement From Gemini
3 minute readCorporate Disclosure Law Enjoys ‘Presumption of Constitutionality,’ Feds Tell Justices
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250