Trump's Travel Ban Upheld By Supreme Court; Establishment Clause Challenge Rejected

This morning in Trump v. Hawaii, (US Sup. Ct., June 26, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the latest version of President Trump's travel ban, rejecting Establishment Clause challenges to the ban. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, said in part:

The case before us differs in numerous respects from the conventional Establishment Clause claim. Unlike the typical suit involving religious displays or school prayer, plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad. Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof. The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office. These various aspects of plaintiffs’ challenge inform our standard of review....

Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen....

For our purposes today we assume that we may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review.... As a result, we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds....

The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks.

The majority also used its opinion to formally reject the long-discredited Korematsu case that in 1944 upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

Justices Kennedy and Thomas each filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, saying in part:

The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. That alone suffices to show that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens. Because that troubling result runs contrary to the Constitution and our precedent, I dissent. 

Hawaii Federal Court Bars Enforcement of Key Provisions of Second Travel Ban

Today a Hawaii federal district court issued a nationwide temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of Section 2  (90 day ban on entry into U.S. of nationals of six Muslim-majority nations) and Section 6 (120 day suspension of entry of refugees) of President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order.  The Executive Order was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. (See prior posting.)  The lawsuit was brought by the state of Hawaii and by the Imam of the Muslim Association of Hawai‘i.  In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (D HI, March 15, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court concluded that:

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.

The court explained its conclusion in part as follows:

The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.... The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”... The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.

According to Hawaii News Now,  President Trump reacted to the ruling during a rally in Nashville, saying in part:

This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. This ruling makes us look weak, which by the way, we no longer are, believe me.  We're going to fight this terrible ruling. We're going to fight this case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Washington Post reports on today's decision. Josh Blackman's Blog has a lengthy post reviewing cases on the application of the Establishment Clause to immigration law matters and reaching a different conclusion than did the Hawaii court about the Executive Order's constitutionality..

Supreme Court Rules Again On Scope of Travel Ban During Appeal

Once again the Supreme Court has found a complicated middle path in the ongoing challenge to President Trump's second Travel Ban Executive Order.  As previously reported, a Hawaii federal district court held that the government too narrowly interpreted the Supreme Court's temporary order that precludes while appeal is pending, enforcement of the ban against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  The government asked the Supreme Court to clarify the matter.  Today in Trump v. Hawaii, (Sup. Ct., July 19, 2017), after receiving briefs on the matter, the Supreme Court refused to stay the portion of the district court's order that allows in otherwise banned foreign nationals from 6 Muslim-majority countries if the travelers have grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, or cousins in the United States. The Supreme Court however suspended, while the government's appeal to the 9th Circuit is pending, the portion of the district court's order that would have allowed entry of refugees who have assurances of placement from a resettlement agency, as well as those entering under the Lautenberg Program.  Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they would have stayed the entire district court order.  SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Justice Department Seeks Supreme Court Review and Stay In Travel Ban Cases [UPDATED]

As reported by the Washington Post, the Justice Department yesterday in two filing with the U.S. Supreme Court sought to overturn lower court decisions invalidating President Trump's second travel ban executive order.  The U.S. filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, asking the Supreme Court to grant review of the 4th Circuit's en banc decision (see prior posting) upholding an injunction against enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Executive Order which imposes a 90-day suspension on entry into the country of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also filed a motion (full text) asking the Supreme Court to stay the lower court's injunction while the appeal to the Supreme Court is pending, and asking for expedited consideration of the cert. petition.  Responding to the request for expedited consideration, the Supreme Court on June 2 issued an order calling for respondents to file a response by June 12.

The government also filed an Application for Stay Pending Appeal (full text) in Trump v. State of Hawaii.  The Application asks the Court to stay the preliminary injunction (see prior posting) issued by a Hawaii federal district court while the appeal of that decision is being considered by the 9th Circuit, and to stay it further while any government appeal to the Supreme Court thereafter is pending.The Hawaii decision enjoined enforcement of both Section 2 of the Executive Order (90 day ban on entry into U.S. of nationals of six Muslim-majority nations) and Section 6 (120 day suspension of entry of refugees).

Supreme Court Grants Review and Partially Lifts Injunctions Against Trump's Travel Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a per curiam opinion in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2017), granted certiorari and partially lifted the outstanding injunctions against enforcement of President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order.  Under the Court's decision, the 90-day ban on entry of nationals from 6 Muslim-majority nations:

may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.

The Court gave illustrations of the line it was drawing:

For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member ... clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The Court similarly partially lifted the injunction against enforcement of the suspension of refugee admissions and the lowering of the cap on refugees, saying:

An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, ... the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.....

.... Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individualseeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000- person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect.

The Court also ordered that oral arguments in the case be heard during the first session of the October term of the Court. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, in a separate opinion dissenting in part said that they would have stayed the preliminary injunctions in full and predicted extensive litigation over what constitutes a bona fide relationship. Washington Post reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Second Trump Travel Ban Executive Order

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in State of Hawaii v. Trump, (Docket No. 17-15589).  In the case, a Hawaii federal district court issued a nationwide temporary injunction against enforcement of key portions of  President Trump's second "travel ban" Executive Order. (See prior posting.) As reported by the New York Times, at issue in the arguments are whether the Executive Order can be considered a "Muslim ban" that violates the Establishment Clause.

District Court Says Challenge To Trump's Alleged Muslim Travel Ban May Proceed

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, May 2, 2019), a Maryland federal district court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit, refused to dismiss Establishment Clause, due process and equal protection challenges to President Trump's third travel ban Proclamation. The Supreme Court's remand was ordered in light of its rejection of an Establishment Clause challenge in a parallel case (Hawaii II). In its latest decision, the district court said, however:

Notably, at no point in Hawaii II did the Supreme Court state that its conclusion that the Proclamation would satisfy rational basis review, based on the record before it and in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction, required dismissal of the Establishment Clause claim in either that case or the present case. Indeed, two Justices, including one in the majority, identified the possibility that constitutional claims would proceed.

Setting out it reasons for allowing the constitutional challenges to now move ahead, the district court said in part:

Plaintiffs have provided detailed allegations for why the Proclamation is not rationally related to its stated national security interests and is instead grounded in the illegitimate and unconstitutional purpose of disadvantaging Muslims.

First, the Complaints provide detailed allegations of statements by the President exhibiting religious animus toward Muslims and articulating a desire to ban Muslims from entering the United States, including his statement as a presidential candidate that he planned to institute "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and numerous later statements reaffirming this position... 

Contrary to the Government's claim during the hearing on the Motion, Hawaii II does not instruct courts to disregard these statements or any public pronouncements of a President, nor does it hold that the subjective intent of the President and his advisors in formulating and issuing the Proclamation is irrelevant. Rather, the Supreme Court specifically stated that this evidence "may be considered," so long as the "authority of the Presidency itself' is given its due....

Trump Extends Some Travel Ban Restrictions To Six More Countries

In an exceptionally long Presidential Proclamation (full text), President Trump on Friday extended tailored restrictions under his controversial travel ban to immigrants (but not temporary visitors) from six additional countries. As explained by a News Release from the Department of Homeland Security:

.... For four countries – Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria – the President has imposed travel restrictions on immigrant visas.

The reason is straightforward – individuals who have entered the U.S. on immigrant visas are challenging to remove even if, after admission into the U.S., the individual is linked to disqualifying information such as terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. 

 And because each of these countries have deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal or identity information, it is likely that information reflecting that a visa applicant is a threat may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved. This is unacceptable.

 Two countries – Sudan and Tanzania – performed marginally better and the President decided to impose travel restrictions on Diversity Visas.  This is a less severe sanction compared to the general restriction on immigrant visas, given the significantly fewer number of aliens affected....

... [T]his Proclamation only restricts entry on certain categories of immigrant visas. Family members can still visit their loved ones, businesses can still employ qualified candidates, and other visits can take place on a temporary basis with a non-immigrant visa.

DHS also issued this shorter news release. Vox has more on the President's action.

Trump Issues More Focused Travel Ban and Refugee Restrictions

As reported by the Washington Post, yesterday President Trump issued a narrower and more focused Executive Order (full text) imposing a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States by nationals of six Muslim-majority nations-- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Iraqi nationals are no long included in the travel ban, though they may be subjected to increased scrutiny.  The Order justifies this list of nations:

Each of these countries is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones. Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States. Moreover, the significant presence in each of these countries of terrorist organizations, their members, and others exposed to those organizations increases the chance that conditions will be exploited to enable terrorist operatives or sympathizers to travel to the United States.... 

This new Order exempts, among others, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and dual nationals traveling on other country passports.  The Order comes as the President's broader Order issued in January remains tied up in the courts.  Yesterday's Order begins with a lengthy section setting out justifications for the earlier Order.  Section 1.(b)(iv) lays out the Administration's argument against charges that the earlier Order favored Christian refugees over others:

Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities -- whoever they are and wherever they reside -- to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

Like the earlier Order, the new one suspends refugee entry of 120 days and limits the number of refugees in fiscal 2017 to 50,000. However, in the new Order Syrian refugees are not singled out for a longer suspension.

Hawaii Sues Trump Over Travel Ban

Last Friday, the state of Hawaii filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump challenging his Executive Order imposing a travel ban on individuals from seven Muslim countries and imposing a moratorium on refugee admissions. The complaint and Memorandum in Support (full text of press release, complaint and Memorandum in support of TRO) in State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, filed 2/3/2017) particularly emphasize Establishment Clause concerns with the Executive Order. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support states in part:

The President and his aides have made it abundantly clear that they intend to exclude individuals of the Muslim faith, and that this Order—which bans travel only with respect to certain Muslim-majority countries—is part of that plan....  Sections 5(b) and 5(e) also explicitly direct the government to prioritize religious refugee claims if the “religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country”—a system of religious preference that President Trump told the media was expressly designed to favor Christians....

In the Establishment Clause context, these statements matter. Because Lemon’s first step is concerned with “whether [the] government’s actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion,” courts routinely look to the public declarations of an act’s originator to discern its true aim.

West Hawaii Today reports on the lawsuit.

Hawaii Files Amended Complaint To Challenge Trump's New Travel Ban Executive Order

As reported by NPR, on Wednesday, Hawaii became the first state to sue to challenge the Trump administration's revised Executive Order imposing a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States by nationals of six Muslim-majority nations.  The state's Second Amended Complaint (full text) in State of Hawaii v. Trump,(D HI, filed 3/8/2017), alleges that the new travel ban violates the Establishment Clause by having the purpose and effect of disfavoring Islam, and violates the equal protection clause by discriminating on the basis of religion and/or national origin, nationality, or alienage.  It also contends that the Executive Order substantially burdens the exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, contending:

Among other injuries, some non-citizens currently outside the United States cannot enter the United States to reunite with their families or religious communities. Religious communities in the United States cannot welcome visitors, including religious workers, from designated countries. And some non-citizens currently in the United States may be prevented from travelling abroad on religious trips, including pilgrimages or trips to attend religious ceremonies overseas, if they do not have the requisite travel documents or multiple-entry visas.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Class Acton Lawsuit Filed Against Travel Ban

On Tuesday, another lawsuit was filed challenging President Trump's so-called travel ban Executive Order.  This suit was brought on behalf of two refugee agencies-- International Refugee Assistance Project and HIAS--and by several individuals.  The complaint (full text) in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, (D MD, filed 2/7/2017) asks a Maryland federal district court to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all persons in the United States for whom the Executive Order interferes with family reunification or with the ability to travel internationally and return to the U.S.  The complaint includes claims based on the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among others, and contends:

President Trump has repeatedly made clear his intent to enact policies that exclude Muslims from entering the United States and favor Christians seeking to enter the United States.

HIAS issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Upholds Most Of Injunction Against Second Travel Ban Without Reaching Establishment Clause Issue

Yesterday in an 86-page per curiam opinion in State of Hawaii v. Trump, (9th Cir., June 12, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the injunction previously issued by an Hawaii federal district court barring enforcement of the major provisions of President Trump's second travel ban Executive Order.  Summarizing its holding the 9th Circuit panel said:

we affirm the injunction as to Section 2(c), suspending entry of nationals from the six designated countries for 90 days; Section 6(a), suspending USRAP for 120 days; and Section 6(b), capping the entry of refugees to 50,000 in the fiscal year 2017.

However the court vacated the injunction to the extent that it prevented the government from conducting inter-agency reviews that do not impact third parties. The court also limited the injunction to government officials other than the President himself.

In its decision, the court did not reach the Establishment Clause arguments. Instead, it relied on statutory grounds:

we conclude that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits at least as to their arguments that EO2 contravenes the INA by exceeding the President’s authority under § 1182(f), discriminating on the basis of nationality, and disregarding the procedures for setting annual admissions of refugees.

The 3 judges deciding the case were all Clinton appointees. The Justice Department previously asked the Supreme Court to suspend the district court's injunction as the case moves through the entire appellate process.

Another Suit Challenges Kentucky Ban On In-Person Church Services

A class-action lawsuit was filed last week in a Kentucky federal district court by three individuals who attended in-person Easter Sunday services at Maryville Baptist Church in Hillview, Kentucky. The in-person services violated Governor Andy Beshear's COVID-19 ban on mass gatherings.  State troopers placed notices on all cars in the church parking lot imposing a 14-day quarantine on those associated with the vehicle attending the service and others in their household. The complaint (full text) in Roberts v. Neace, (ED KY, filed 4/14/2020) alleges a violation of plaintiffs' free exercise rights, alleging in part:

Defendants’ prohibition of any in person church services, in the name of fighting Covid-19, is not generally applicable. There are numerous exceptions to the March 19, 2020 Order, such as an exception for factories, or attending establishments like shopping malls, where far more people come into closer contact with less oversight.

The suit also challenges the governor's travel ban. WTVQ News reports on the lawsuit. A different Kentucky federal district court has refused to restrain enforcement of the ban on mass gatherings. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Issued Clean-Up Orders In Other Pregnancy Clinic and Travel Ban Cases

In light of Tuesday's Supreme Court decisions in the travel ban and the pro-life pregnancy center cases, yesterday the Supreme Court issued clean-up orders, remanding for consideration in light of those decisions several similar cases in which petitions for review were pending. (Order List (June 28, 2018)):

In Woman's Friend Clinic v. Becerra (Docket No. 16-1146); Livingwell Medical Clinic v. Becerra (Docket No. 16-1153); Mountain Right to Life v. Beccera  (Docket No. 17-211); the court granted certiorari, vacated 9th Circuit judgments below, and remanded for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life  Advocates v. Becerra.

In International Refugee Assistance v. Trump (Docket No. 17-1194) and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance (Docket No. 17-1270), the Court granted certiorari, vacated 4th Circuit judgments below, and remanded for further consideration in light of Trump v. Hawaii.

US Asks Supreme Court For Full Stay Pending Appeal of Injunction Against 3rd Travel Ban

As previously reported, a week ago the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed in part the preliminary injunction issued by a Hawaii federal district court against enforcement of President Trump's third travel ban.  Yesterday, the government filed an application (full text) in the case (Trump v. State of Hawaii) seeking to have the preliminary injunction stayed completely while the case works its way through appeals to the 9th Circuit and to the Supreme Court.  According to a report from SCOTUSblog, the Justices have asked the challengers to file a response to the government's application by Nov. 28.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments In Travel Ban Case Today

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the legality of the most recent version of President Trump's controversial "travel ban."  As explained by this argument preview from SCOTUSblog, as well as this New York Times preview, one of the major questions that the Court will face is whether Donald Trump's anti-Muslim statements  during his campaign for office, and his Tweets while in office, should be considered in deciding whether his later executive action violates the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS blog's case page has links to the numerous briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary and other primary source documents.  I will post a link to the transcript of the oral argument when it becomes available later today.

Injunction Against Trump's 3rd Travel Ban Is Lifted In Part

In State of Hawaii v. Trump, (9th Cir., Nov. 13, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed in part the preliminary injunction issued by a Hawaii federal district court against enforcement of President Trump's third travel ban. (See prior posting.)  The 9th Circuit held:

The preliminary injunction is stayed except as to “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States....

The injunction remains in force as to foreign nationals who have a “close familial relationship” with a person in the United States.... Such persons include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins.... “As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [Proclamation 9645].”

Reuters reports on the decision.

District Court Broadens Those Still Allowed Entry Under Trump's Travel Ban [UPDATED]

In State of Hawai'i v. Trump, (D HI, July 13, 2017), a Hawaii federal district court held that the government has too narrowly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's order that precludes enforcement of President Trump's second travel ban executive order against foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  The district court held that qualifying close familial relationships include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.  It also held that a refugee seeking entry has a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity when a resettlement agency has given the refugee assurance that it will provide, or arrange for, reception and placement services to that refugee.  A similar relationship exists for those in the Lautenberg Program for refugee admissions. New York Times reports on the decision.

UPDATE:  As reported by SCOTUSblog, on July 14, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to clarify that the district court's decision is an incorrect interpretation of the Supreme Court's order.  The Supreme Court ordered plaintiffs in the case to file a response to the government's motion for clarification by noon on July 18.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In 3rd Travel Ban Challenge; Asks For Argument on Establishment Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order (full text) granting review in Trump v. Hawaii, (Docket No. 17-965, cert. granted 1/19/2018).   In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the third version of President Trump's travel ban is inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, but stayed its injunction pending Supreme Court review. (See prior posting.) While the 9th Circuit avoided ruling on plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, the Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief and argue that issue (raised as Question 3 in Hawaii's brief in opposition), as well as the issues raised by the original petition for certiorari.  SCOTUSblog's case page has links to additional primary source material relating to the case.