Law Essay Example on Supreme Court Case Study: Trump V. Hawaii

This paper is a case study evaluation of the Trump vs Hawaii case decided on 26th June 2018 by the United States Supreme Court. It outlines the facts of the case, who was involved, the decision of the nine judges and how political ideology may have influenced the decision.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The case origin was on 27th January 2017 where on his first week as president of the United States, Trump provided a dissemination of an executive order with the title protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the U.S. the order was to establish stipulations on foreign nationals travelling to the United States from Muslim majority countries. "On issue, this order was confronted by lawsuits one being the Washington vs Trump which lodged a temporary restraining order on this governing order holding ground that it was illegitimate and could cause considerable damage if carried out" (Cornell Law Institute).

There was another issue on 6th March 2017 correcting some of the questionable language from the president's first order with the same title as the first executive order. The second executive order although having neutral language placed the same implicit travel bans on Muslim nationals and other lawsuits emerged questioning the lawfulness of the order. The lawsuits filed asserted prejudice against travellers based on their religion.

The case while involving the president of the United States and his government also had plaintiffs that is the state of Hawaii three individuals affected by entry suspension and the Muslim Association of Hawaii. The state of Hawaii had the assertion that the order would lower the tourism in the state which was a major revenue earner together with public universities and employees. Dr Elkshikh the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii held a complaint that it was inequity and a violation to the INA. The district court of Hawaii after listening to the plaintiffs' complaint, put up an amendment converting the temporary restraining order to preliminary injunction that banned the implementation of the order. The ninth circuit also provided an affirmation of the injunction.

However, on 24th September 2017, the president delivered proclamation No.9465 pursuing improvement of vetting procedures for foreign nationals travelling to the U.S by recognition of ongoing deficiencies in information essential to analyse whether nationals of a particular country present a security threat (Supreme Court of the United States, 2017).

The case involving the president and the state of Hawaii was taken up by the Supreme Court with reason to the restraining order issued by a Washington court on an executive order, amendment by the district court of Hawaii and supporting claim by the ninth circuit. The Supreme Court after holding that the injunction could not stand made a remit of the case to lower courts.

Decision rule

The Supreme Court after the issue of the proclamation had the decision that the injunction could not stand as the president had lawful exercise of the grant of discretion to him in suspension of entry of aliens to the United States. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiffs assertions justifiable and that the proclamation does not violate president's statutory authority or establishment clause.

The deliverance of the 5 to 4 majority opinion was by the chief justice John Roberts. The majority; Justice Alito, Gorsuch, Kennedy, Thomas and the chief justice held the decision that "the president had the power as under section 1182 of the Immigration and Nationality Act" (U.S Constitution). They also put in place that the ruling is in no infringement of another statute. Justice Anthony Kennedy was of an according opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Stephen Breyer was in dispute with the support of justice Kagan in question of the government's purpose to implement the exclusion. "Justice Sonia Sotomayor also had a disagreement on the majority to which justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on board with. The critic on the majority was that they ignored facts and turning a blind eye" (Oyez).

Political ideology was an important factor in the Supreme Court justice ruling. As the majority made up of chief justice John Roberts, associate justices Anthony Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch constitute the courts conservative wing appointed by the Republican presidents, in this case, the president Donald Trump. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan constitute the courts liberals. This shows the decision rule by the court was swayed by the majority who are in December had a sanction of the travel ban go in effect on q temporary basis.

The case is of an opinion that bans people of Muslim majority countries from travelling to the United States and hence causing separation from families from legal citizens of the United States. In dissent to the decision rule, the Supreme Court judges could have headed to justice Sotomayor that it is in ignorance to the suffering of the families of these people and citizens of the United States. It was not a fair decision to these citizens. My decision rule would have been to hold the preliminary injunction as the executive order was unconstitutional would have statutory injuries on residents.

Works cited

Oyez. "Trump v. Hawaii". www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-965. Accessed 9 November 2018.

Supreme Court of the United States. "Trump, President of the United States v. Hawaii", 2017. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17. Accessed 9 November 2018.

Cornell law institute. Legal Information Institute. "Trump v. Hawaii". www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-965. Accessed 9 November 2018.

United States Constitution, Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 1182.