Trump v. Hawaii: A Case Study in Legal Writing & Communication

This case study provides a detailed legal analysis of Trump v. Hawaii, a landmark Supreme Court case concerning President Donald Trump's executive order restricting immigration from several countries. The case examines the substantive and procedural facts, including the executive orders issued, the legal challenges brought against them, and the rulings of various courts. It delves into the key issues, such as the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the President's authority over immigration matters. The analysis includes criticism of the executive order, focusing on arguments that it constituted a "Muslim ban" and exceeded presidential authority. The study concludes by summarizing the Supreme Court's decision, which upheld the travel ban based on national security justifications, and highlighting the ongoing legal and political debates surrounding the case. Desklib offers more case studies and solved assignments for students.

Running head: LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Legal Writing and Research Communication
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Case Citation
Trump v. Hawaii
No. 17-965, 585 U.S (2018)
Facts:
Substantive Facts:
President Donald Trump had signed an Executive Order No. 13, 769 on January 27, 2017.
The order stated that entry was suspended for a time period of 90 days from seven different
countries that has been recognized by the Congress due to the high rate of terrorism and other
risks. Another Executive order no. 13, 780 was issued as it directed the entry of all the
nationals from six of the seven countries that were suspended for a period of 90 days from the
effective date. There is time to determine the necessary standards for preventing infiltration
by the foreign terrorists. The immigration policy will be applied by President Donald Trump
of United States who had sought to prohibit the foreigners from the a few specific countries
from travelling to United States. These countries were majorly affected by a large population
of Muslims. On March 6 2017, President Trump regarding the findings from the ninth circuit
signed an executive order of 13780. The other countries and their citizens of Iran, Syria and
Yemen required an extra scrutiny before they entered the United States. Restraining order
was therefore placed under previous executive order dated February 3, 2017.
Procedural Facts:
There was a filing of late dissent on 7th of March in the year 2017, which was directed in
regard to the opinion on the part of ninth circuit in this particular topic that has been applied
against the Washington clause of establishment clans on ground that was related to the speech
of Trump during the campaign of political speech. It was there as the first amendment had

2LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
provided protection. The ninth circuit on the ruling of Washington vs Trump declined the
addressing of the issue and quotes of United States did not on the issues. Kozinski had argued
that it was inappropriate for addressing the issues by him. This is due to the reason; the
opinion of the ninth circuit has been effectively right-sided by George Washington.
Regarding this a panel setup on June 12 2017. Thereafter, the relevant issue violated
President Trump order and so it was enjoined. It has been observed that an power is entrusted
upon the President of United States to speak to the nationals of the state. An argument was
raised by the plaintiffs regarding the fact that the wordings of the President in a public speech
can actually affect the standards of respect and tolerance among the citizens which can
violate the constitution. The importance of the statements in reviewing a directive
Presidential, helps in addressing a matter including the core of Executive responsibility.
President Trump had sent out a diplomatic table on June 29. The purpose of this was to
consulate and seeks to define what qualifies as a bonafide relationship by not including the
connections with Refugee settlement agencies. Instead, they must be clarified as stepsiblings
and half siblings who are close to family whereas on the other hand nephews and
grandparents are not.
There were limitations set on the part of President Refugee Resettlement Agencies
and the definition of family which created a violation on the order of the Supreme Court by
stating that grandparents are the most essential members of the family. However, the foreign
nationals had seat admission by having no constitutional right to enter. The Court that had
been associated in a circumscribed judicial enquiry 139 was allegedly burdened the
constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States. It is worthwhile to refer here that,
Donald Trump signed a new presidential proclamation on the day of September 24, 2017, by
replacing an expanding the March executive order. The hearing of it was cancelled and the
court for declaring the case moot. Another purpose was to vacate the lower courts.

3LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Rule:
In the opinion of the Court of United States, the validity of the concept of travel ban has been
upheld in accordance to the power of the President.
Issue(s):
The related issues associated with the scenario include executive order that helps in
restricting immigration from six countries. The purpose of it is to set a cap on refugees for
seeking admission into the United States for violating the establishment clause of the First
Amendment.
Reasoning:
When there is a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court can reverse the ruling of the Ninth Circuit.
Therefore, the Court stated a conclusion where the plaintiffs failed to show the success of
likelihood of success based on the merits since the order fell within the power of the
President over the matters of immigration. Hence, the plaintiffs were not liable to any
preliminary injunction. The Court further remanded the case for further proceedings.
Criticism:
It was criticized that as per the executive order 13780 devil cases, which will legally
challenged. The challenge enumerated from Hawaii and formed important basis of the
Supreme Court case. It is noteworthy to mention here that, a civil action was brought which
challenged the nature of the executive order held on March 7 regarding the granting of a
declaratory judgment. An injunction is there for given by halting the order. The purpose of
bringing an action for decorated judgment was to amend the complaint regarding an

4LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
executive order. The present executive order is nothing compared to the Muslim ban, which
was a huge issue. Asphalt national security the refugees and immigrants are generally
targeted. This will help in opening for further restrictions in such situation. It was criticized
based on the legal challenge of Hawaii that was to be revised it advisor as it is stated that
bang means to conquer the same basic policy as a result of the original. The District Judge of
United States has issued a temporary restraining order that is injunction for prohibiting the
relevant sections of two and six of this particular executive order 13780 from going into
effect. Search Watson had ruled the State of Hawaii as it signified a probability of upcoming
success on the claim regarding the establishment clause in a certain the executive order 13780
which was in fact or Muslim ban. There was an appropriate relief in the light of the likelihood
related to the success based on the establishment Clause claim. The order must be neutral to
religion so that the position of the Covenant Sunday quotes may not be considered to be
unethical while exercising the duties of the executive in reviewing the judicial order that has
been rejected on the ground of illegality.
The supreme court of United States has issued as per curiamon June 26, 2017. The court has
there for you should a person stay as per the order of Judge Watson. According to section 2©
the court has ruled the 19 year man from these six specific countries that cannot not be
imposed against any of the foreign nationals. These nationals are said to have a credible plane
of a bonafide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. This relationship was
treated to be formal documented and it has fault based on an ordinary course instead for
evading. There after section 6(a) that particularly discusses the provisions where the
government is allowed to suspend certain admissions and to determine a cap on the
admissions of refugee at 50,000. In such a situation the order of the court can get prevented
by the enforcement of the government on those section towards an individual in was seeking
admission as a Refugee. If the refugee has the power to establish a bonafide relationship with

5LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
an individual or a entity operating in the United States only then this will be applicable.
When there is no determination of the bonafide relationship then the government can be
allowed to enforce sections 2 and 6 of the executive order in all other instances. As per the
decision of the Court there was an application for stay granted. This stated that president
Donald Trump as the petitioner has initiated the president in the supreme court of the United
States on June 1 2017 by filing an application for a state pending appeal to Justice Kennedy.
Discharge was supervising and ninth circuit where it was submitted to the court that it deals
with the application for stay granted. The Supreme Court of United States and Donald
trump's application for stay in part of certiorari on June 26 2017 by consolidating all the
arguments in such a case. However, it hurt executive order was published on September 24
2017 Donald Trump president of United States had issued his third order on immigration by
revising his previous order which was dated on March 2017. The plaintiff being Trump had
amended the lawsuit to include a challenge to this particular third executive order. After
reviewing all the executive orders there was a decision by the Supreme Court on October 24
2017. It has declared that the court has issued by summary disposition in this particular case
by the court vacated the judgment of the ninth circuit. The purpose of this was to remain the
matter back to the Lower court with instructions and dismiss the case as moot.
A temporary injunction was asked by the Plaintiffs to state the effect since the September
executive order in the litigation was pending. The federal district judge ruled in the favor of
Donald Trump on October 20 2017. Based on this the government appealed to the ninth
circuit. It had there for upheld a partial injunction and the government before periods to the
United States of Supreme Court. Along with the intermediate rulings on trump's executive
orders, the Supreme Court states the district courts October 20 ruling on December 4 2017.
The ruling allowed the entire executive orders of Trump to go into the effect when the case
was still pending. There was ruling on December 22, 2017 where the ninth circuit had a farm

6LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
in part and rivers in part and District Court ruling in joining the one, which was made in
September 2017 from going into effect. The ninth circuit against part of the order issued hens
and injunction by concluding that the president has exceeded his authority.
Before it was observed, the court did not strike down a policy as a legitimate under the
scrutiny of rational basis. Focusing on the decision of the supreme court it can we said that
there was a preliminary injunction the court concluded that the plaintiffs could not show any
kind of likelihood that they would succeed based on the merits. While reviewing the
immigration law and presidential authority over the immigration it was said that the textual
limit cannot be exceeded under any text limit on the quality of the president. Under all the
given circumstances, the government has set into the world as a sufficient national security
justification for surviving the review of rational basis. While drawing the conclusion of the
case, it was well established that the evidence of purpose was, be on the face of the challenge
law that can be considered in evaluating the establishment and equal protection of the clause
and claims. The department of justice thereafter said that the administration would keep on
defending the underling executive orders. The ruling was denounced on the part of P
resident Donald Trump by emphasizing that an unprecedented judicial precedent indicates
enjoying the decision as it would be appealed. The Supreme Court has held on April 25,
2018, which was related to the version of the travel ban. Therefore, a President can limit the
entry when he finds that the entry would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.
According to Donald Trump, some countries have aliens that are detrimental since these
countries cannot share a liquid information with United States for an informed decisions on
entry and that the other countries are detrimental because that aliens create the national
security risks. It was observed in pointed out by Justin Roberts that five of the seven Nations
have a majority number of Muslims general do not support any kind of interference towards
religious hostility in regard to the structured policy covering 8% of the total Muslim

7LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
population of the world. Hence, it is therefore limited between two countries that were
previously formulated on the part of the Congress and previous administrative bodies that
posed as major risk to the national security. There were waiver exceptions including medical
that people from banned Nations.

8LEGAL WRTING AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
References:
Fullerton, Maryellen. "Trump, Turmoil, and Terrorism: The US Immigration and Refugee
Ban." International Journal of Refugee Law 29.2 (2017): 327-338.
Martin, Jeremy. "Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Program 137 S. Ct. 2080
(2017)." Ohio NUL Rev. 44 (2018): 131.