News & Insights

Facts

In 2017, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645, which restricted entry for nationals from eight countries identified as having inadequate information-sharing practices or presenting heightened national security risks. This was the third iteration of what was commonly referred to as the “travel ban.” The restrictions applied to countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen, among others, and included exceptions for lawful permanent residents and specific case-by-case waivers.

The plaintiffs, including the State of Hawaii and individuals affected by the restrictions, argued that the Proclamation violated federal immigration laws and the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, claiming it was motivated by religious animus toward Muslims. Lower courts issued injunctions against enforcing the Proclamation.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed two main issues:

• Statutory Authority Under Federal Immigration Law The Court examined whether the President exceeded his authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which allows the President to suspend the entry of foreign nationals if deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The Court held that the law grants the President broad discretion to make such determinations and implement entry restrictions. The Proclamation’s detailed findings about security risks satisfied the statutory requirement.

• Constitutional Challenge Under the Establishment Clause The plaintiffs argued that the Proclamation targeted Muslim-majority countries and was motivated by religious hostility. The Court applied rational basis review and determined that the policy was plausibly related to legitimate national security objectives. The inclusion of non-Muslim-majority countries like North Korea and Venezuela and the extensive interagency review process supported the government’s claim that the restrictions were not motivated by religious bias.