E-Paper
Trump v. Hawaii: Explaining case cited in new US travel ban order affecting Cuba and Haiti
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries. The affected nations include Cuba and Haiti. The White House cited the Trump vs Hawaii (2018) as a legal precedent in its latest press release.
The proclamation, enacted under Executive Order 14161, fully bans entry from 12 nations and partially restricts seven, including Cuba (partial) and Haiti (full), to combat terrorism and national security risks.
Trump v. Hawaii upheld the president’s authority to restrict entry, a ruling central to the new ban’s justification.
Overview of Trump v. Hawaii
Trump v. Hawaii (585 US 667) challenged Proclamation No. 9645, Trump’s third travel ban, issued on September 24, 2017. It restricted entry from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen), citing deficient vetting and security risks. Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and others sued, alleging the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims.
The case centered on whether the president’s authority under INA Section 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f))—allowing suspension of entry for foreigners deemed “detrimental” to US interests—was lawful and whether the ban was motivated by anti-Muslim bias.
On June 26, 2018, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
The majority ruled:
Presidential Authority: Section 212(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend entry when national security is at stake, supported by a worldwide review of vetting processes.
No Religious Discrimination: The ban was facially neutral, based on security concerns, not anti-Muslim animus, despite Trump’s campaign statements. The Court applied rational basis review, finding the ban had a “legitimate purpose."
Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the ban was rooted in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violating the Establishment Clause, and drawing parallels to Korematsu v. United States (1944).
Relevance to 2025 Travel Ban
The 2025 proclamation relies on Trump v. Haiti to justify restrictions under Section 212(f), citing the same authority upheld in 2018. The new ban targets countries like Haiti (31.38% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Cuba (state sponsor of terrorism) for inadequate vetting and security risks.
