Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments (Finally) in "Travel Ban" Case

by


On April 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii , the "travel ban" case. The questions presented are as follows:

(1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable;

(2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad;

(3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and

(4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

The Ninth Circuit in a per curiam opinion by Judges Michael Daly Hawkins , Ronald Gould , and Richard Paez , affirmed an injunction entered by the district court.

Amy Howe previews the oral argument for SCOTUSBlog . She outlines the arguments of the parties on the issues presented and concludes as follows:

"Reflecting the deep public interest in the case and the travel ban more generally, the justices received a wide range of “friend of the court” briefs – submitted by everyone from Mormon history and legal scholars to Khizr Khan , the Gold Star father who criticized Trump at the 2016 Democratic National Convention , and a group of U.S. art museums. The court also announced last week that it would make the audio of the oral argument available shortly after the argument on Wednesday, rather than waiting until Friday, when the audio is normally released. But although we may have a good sense of where the justices are heading after next week’s oral argument, we almost certainly will have to wait until late June for the court’s ruling."

This post originally appeared on Law Professor Blogs © 2014-2017 by Law Professor Blogs, LLC. All rights reserved.


About The Author

Kevin Johnson Kevin Johnson is Dean, Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law, and Professor of Chicana/o Studies. He joined the UC Davis law faculty in 1989 and was named Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1998. Johnson became Dean in 2008. He has taught a wide array of classes, including immigration law, civil procedure, complex litigation, Latinos and Latinas and the law, and Critical Race Theory. In 1993, he was the recipient of the law school's Distinguished Teaching Award.Dean Johnson has published extensively on immigration law and civil rights. Published in 1999, his book How Did You Get to Be Mexican? A White/Brown Man's Search for Identity was nominated for the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. Dean Johnson’s latest book, Immigration Law and the US-Mexico Border (2011), received the Latino Literacy Now’s International Latino Book Awards – Best Reference Book. Dean Johnson blogs at ImmigrationProf, and is a regular contributor on immigration on SCOTUSblog. A regular participant in national and international conferences, Dean Johnson has also held leadership positions in the Association of American Law Schools and is the recipient of an array of honors and awards. He is quoted regularly by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other national and international news outlets.


The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.