Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
President Trump issued a proclamation restricting entry into the U.S. from several predominantly Muslim countries. Opponents argued it violated the Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban 5–4, ruling it was within the President’s authority over immigration and national security. In doing so, the Court explicitly disavowed Korematsu v. United States (1944) as wrongly decided.

3) Why It Mattered
This case reaffirmed broad presidential discretion in immigration policy while also symbolically repudiating one of the Court’s most infamous rulings (Korematsu).

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Strong affirmation of executive authority in immigration and national security.
• Took Away: Legal challenges to the travel ban based on Establishment Clause arguments.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Critics argued the Court deferred too heavily to the executive, enabling discrimination under the guise of security. Supporters said the Court properly respected presidential power in foreign affairs.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
The President has wide latitude to restrict entry into the U.S. for national security reasons. While Korematsu was denounced, the case shows how far executive power can extend in immigration policy.

• Executive Power
• Immigration
• National Security
• Religion