Since the initial days of the first travel ban, Lawfare has curated a resource of court documents in the litigation against each iteration of the Trump administration’s executive orders limiting travel into the United States from citizens of largely Muslim-majority countries. The page started with just a handful of court cases; it currently includes over 50. And now, it’s completely up to date.
Latest in Travel Ban
Trump v. Hawaii is about the constitutional status of pretext: When should we accept a pretext from the president and what does it take to cure or alleviate the taint of bad acts by a president once they have taken place?
Courts are likely to have to address these points in the near future.
Hot on the heels of the Kennedy retirement announcement, we’ve got our special Supreme Court finale episode! This is the show for you if you would enjoy detailed and amicable debate and discussion concerning:
What the high court said in Tuesday's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, regarding the president's travel ban.
On Tuesday, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s September 2017 immigration order restricting entry to the United States by nationals of eight countries, finding that the order did not exceed the president’s authority under Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The full ruling is below.
During oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, the solicitor general said repeatedly that only countries that failed to meet a minimum standard of information-sharing were included in the travel ban. But the basis for these claims is not at all apparent.
While it can be risky to predict the outcome of cases based on oral argument, the Supreme Court appears to be leaning toward upholding President Trump’s travel ban.
Wednesday’s oral arguments in Trump v. Hawaii held few surprises.