Trump v. Hawaii

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Constitutional Law

138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawImmigrationExecutive PowerEstablishment ClauseINA8 U.S.C. §1182(f)8 U.S.C. §1152(a)(1)(A)presidential proclamation

Facts

After earlier executive orders and a worldwide agency review, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645 to improve vetting by identifying countries with inadequate information-sharing or other security risks. Following DHS-led review and consultation with other agencies and Cabinet officials, the Proclamation imposed varying entry restrictions on nationals of several countries, included exceptions and case-by-case waivers, and required ongoing review every 180 days. Hawaii, several individuals with affected relatives, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii challenged the Proclamation, arguing that it violated the INA and the Establishment Clause. The individual plaintiffs alleged injury from separation from relatives seeking entry to the United States.

Issue

Whether the President lawfully exercised authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) and related INA provisions in issuing the Proclamation, and whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their claim that the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause. The Court also addressed whether the individual plaintiffs had standing to pursue the constitutional challenge.

Rule

Section 1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens whenever he finds their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, including deciding when, whom, for how long, and on what conditions to restrict entry. Section 1152(a)(1)(A) governs discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas, not the President's admissibility or entry determinations under §1182(f). In reviewing this facially neutral proclamation in the immigration and national security context, the Court assumed it could look behind the face of the policy and apply rational basis review, under which the policy is upheld so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a 90-day review led by the Departments of Homeland Security and State, the President issues a proclamation restricting entry of nationals from five countries whose governments refuse to provide reliable identity records and terrorism-related data. The proclamation states that entry of those nationals would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, includes country-specific limits, and requires reassessment every 180 days.

A group of affected families argues that the President lacked statutory authority because the Immigration and Nationality Act already lists detailed inadmissibility grounds. How should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority read §1182(f) as a sweeping delegation. Its sole prerequisite is that the President find entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to U.S. interests. The Court rejected the idea that existing INA inadmissibility provisions implicitly displace that authority; the President may impose additional entry restrictions beyond those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.