lOMoARcPSD|51793812
POL 210
1-1 Discussion Federalism
1.2 Discussion Federalism, National Supremacy, and Division of Power
Good evening. My name is xxxx I am 47 years old and reside in Massachusetts. I recently remarried and I
am the father of 5 wonderful children resulting from our blended families. Our children range in age
from 9 to 26. I have been out of school since 1995 when I briefly attended Norwich University.
Unfortunately, I suffered a severe leg injury and had to drop out of school. I have since been fortunate
enough to pursue my passion with a career in law enforcement. I am a 17-year veteran serving a local
police force where I have been assigned for the last 10 years as a Major Crime Detective. I am currently
pursuing my Associates Degree in Criminal Justice and intend to continue my education in order to
attain my Bachelor’s degree. I enjoy spending time with my family, boating and travel.
The case I chose to analyze was Trump v. Hawaii. During President Trump’s campaign he called for a
“Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” (Hlr, 2018). Following through
with campaign statements, on January 27, 2017 President trump issued Executive Order No. 13,769
(EO1) which suspended entry for ninety days for foreign nationals from seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) (Oyez, n.d.). President Trump cited national security and protection
of U.S. citizens while critics and opponents of the Executive order labeled it the “Muslim ban” and began
taking legal action to halt the order. The order was immediately challenged and a federal district court
issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on February 3, 2017, which was subsequently upheld
by the Ninth Circuit Court on February 9, 2017 (Oyez, n.d.).
President Trump then issued Executive Order No. 13,780 (EO-2) which restricted travel from six
countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) on March 16, 2017. This order was quickly
challenged but expired before it could be adjudicated (hlr, 2018). On September 24, 2017 President
Trump issued Proclamation No. 9,645 (EO-3) which restricted travel to the U.S. from eight countries
(Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen). This proclamation was issued based
on “foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism” and each furthermore noted, paragraph f of
Title 8 of the United States Code which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any
restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (hlr, 2018). This order was immediately litigated and the
U.S. District Court of Hawaii issued a preliminary injunction.
The constitutional issues that were brought forward in this case and lower court rulings noted that the
president had violated the Establishment Clause of First Amendment. This clause states that the
government is prohibited from establishing a religion (state sponsored church) (United States Courts,
2020). The argument was that President Trump had made his motive clear to exclude Muslims and
Islams during his campaign and as such cast doubt on the official objective of national security. Another
issue was the claim that the orders were a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Noting that
President Trump exceeded his authority to exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. (hlr, 2018). The final
issue was relative to the president’s restriction and denial of visas based on nationality.
The U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and on June 26, 2018 reversed the lower court ruling in
a 5-4 decision holding that the Proclamation did not violate the president’s statutory authority or the
establishment clause (oyez, n.d.). The majority noted “the president has broad discretion to suspend
the entry of non-citizens into the United States. “They further noted that “the orders did not violate INA
because though it does prohibit discrimination, it does not block a president’s authority to block
nationals from some countries.” Lastly, the majority noted on the claim of Establishment, “the
proclamation did not favor or disfavor any particular religion. Furthermore, because the proclamation
noted some majority Muslim countries but not others supported the governments claim that the
proclamation was based sufficiently in national security and not anti-Muslim animus.” (oyez, n.d.).
The Supreme Court’s decision, specifically Justice Thomas, noted in his opinion that the district court’s
trend to issue nationwide or global injunctions is an overstep of authority (oyez, n.d.). This case also
noted the federal government, and more so, the president’s authority to act based on the belief that he
or she has access to security information and therefore their polices are considered legitimized.
This case had an impact on women, families, and people of color because it limited entry into the United
States, even for those with visa’s causing hardship and separation of families who were already present
in this country.
References:
hlr. (2018, November 9). Trump v. Hawaii. Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-
132/trump-v-hawaii/#footnote-23
Trump v. Hawaii. (n.d.). Oyez. from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-965
United States Courts. (2020). First Amendment and Religion. United States Courts.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-
and religion#:~:text=The%20Establishment%20clause%20prohibits%20the
