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?
Latest in Travel Ban
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.
When the government argues Trump v. Hawaii before the Supreme Court on April 25, it will rely on the president’s Article II power. What are that argument’s merits?
An analysis of the Fourth Circuit's decision in IRAP v. Trump.