Trump v. Hawaii Constrained Court View and the influences on the Supreme Court
Thesis:

The main aim of this text is to highlight the misdeeds of the trump administration ruling on the immigration policy to the extent of the law. Legal precedence always follows facts and without that, the law is void and needs clarification. In the constrained view of the case, there is need to look at the implications on the economics, culture, outlook and psychology of the people involved. The law affects immigrants from all nations of Islam. The need to get the law right on this one is still in contention since various factions argue to differ. The law states clearly that America is land of the free but again, the law dictates that the government is mandated by the constitution to help the citizens preserve their security and be able to stay safe. The Trump vs Hawaii law of 2018 clearly has contentions. In terms of culture, the Muslims are affected since their rights to religion is monitored and certain practices banned in the United States. This infringes in their right to freely express themselves since they need the actual law to protect them as aliens. The civil rights act of 1969 protects them against slavery and any misdeeds since in the country they are viewed as illegal aliens and need the protectionist rights to be able to live freely. in terms of economics, most of the people are affected. Being that their country men are known terrorists, the risk averse is transferred to them and thus suffer the consequences. They need every available resources to be able to survive in a foreign country but if they are denied the right, they will not be able to. Socially, they are segregated and most people will not want to interact with them. It is important to note the difference in opinion between the courts and the president on this issue. As much as it protects the people form harm, there is collateral damage in terms of innocent people on the other side being victimized for nothing. The law has to protect the citizens and the immigrants in equal measure. The security threat is real to everyone, even the immigrants. They stand to lose the most since they suffer discrimination, neglect, economic choking and sun standard services including education and medical services.

Case Summary:

The executive order 13780 and 13769 as part of president Trump’s immigration policy, there was need to limit the entry of foreigners to the US. Some of the countries blacklisted were Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Syria. They were believed to house many extremists’ terrorists who spewed foul language about the US in the internet. There was a grace period for this ban to allow for negotiations on the way forward since there had been rumors of imminent attacks on the United States. Ever since the September 2001 attacks on the twin towers, vigilance in terms of security has been observed. Consequent attacks on Boston, New York and Los Angeles made the law become strict since America was believed to be a breeding ground for terrorists. The grace period of 90 days was to allow time for negotiations with the various governments on the correct form of foreign policy to adopt, but at the same time flush out the terrorists in the US.

The president was right to enact the executive order since it was within his right to force the law to work. The constrained view of the court protected the right of everyone, including the terrorists, leaving the American people vulnerable to the attacks that were now increasing and efforts to thwart them were dwindling. The main issue is similar to that of the fourth circuit case in Maryland where Judge Theodore Chuang declared a national preliminary injunction on blocking the enforcement of only section 2(c) of the executive order, imposing a 90-day suspension on the entry of immigrants. Hawaii Judge issued an extension on the injunction but further enjoined sections 2 and 6 of the executive order to their entirety. This was to reduce the refugee influx since it was a 120-day ban. There was to be an internal review by various cabinet ministers, to ensure that vetting of immigrants and foreign nationals from the six targeted countries was above board and that no unnecessary discrimination was taking place.

Hawaii challenges executive order 13780 citing first amendment violations of the constitution. The state of Hawaii itself was formed as a result of Supreme Court decision so they were within every right to appeal. The most important legislation was of travel ban yet, Hawaii saw itself as part of the US and banning travel for foreigners marked them for destruction since they were a struggling economy trying to put their social, political and economic sectors in order. The law targets immigrants and refugees, citing from the national Security Council memo, saying that every foreigner is a threat to national security until they are vetted. It is important for the refugees and immigrants to be protected under the first amendment stating America as the land of the free. It is also important to accept that most people are inclined to travel to the US for fear of being labelled suspects, but the constitution protects all of them from discrimination.

Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order barring sections 2 and 6 of the executive order form going into play. It was important to leave time for negotiation to allow other immigrant to get their right when coming into the US. The law has its flaws but in the end it protects all the citizens from harm. It is important for the courts to admit the fact that not all the laws implemented are true to the fact but rather assumption form previous laws couples with the unnecessary bureaucracy of the courts to be able to get a desired outcome.

Elements of Constrained Court View (CCV)

In this instance, the law is...…utterances that were not to be considered in a court of law but to many people’s surprise, he managed to get them to pass into law. Not only did the utterance convert into law, but executive orders were signed and implemented as per the campaign promises. The politics in the case dilutes the fact of the matter. There is some sort of entitlement in the foreign nationals corner but suffice to say, not all of the statements were false. The uncontrolled immigration had caused massive influx of unqualified labor, according to national bureau of statistics and the need to get only qualified labor was the reason for the ban. Many jobs were taken away from the American people and this resulted in disillusion on the part of the citizen thus most of them were for the Muslim immigration ban.

Implications under which Supreme Court is more likely to be dynamic (Dynamic Court View)

The impact on the decision by the court needs to be seen for long term purposes. The court looks at the law and the current atmosphere in the country. The Trump vs Hawaii case was at the height of the immigration law case, where by there was a need to build Mexican border wall to fight the drug cartels. At the same time there was need to fight the terrorists who were entering the country in large numbers through the airports and caused a security concern. The courts have an obligation for the American people and yet they need rule justly and fairly. The context of the immigration ban took a security angle and the courts had to consider this fact since they are at liberty to rule for or against the issue at hand.

Various interpretations of the law took effect since it was not important at the time to look at all the issues of social and economic effects. The important factor in this case was security. Most immigrants are hardworking people, this is a fact. Another fact is some immigrant come in the United States with bad intentions. To weed out these people, there has to be a law to detect and prevent them from pursuing their goals in the country and if possible anywhere else in the world.

The well-being of existing immigrants has to be considered too. There is backlash on segregating the immigrants and non-natives in America since it takes people back to the old days of slavery. A reminder of past atrocities is indeed not needed in this case but the issue be handled with decorum and respect for human rights. The need to adjust the laws to suit everyone interest is recommended since it can affect the outcome of other cases, thwarting years of progress trying to get the right issues passed along but to no avail. USSC upheld the law stating the law “substantially-related to an important govt. interest.” However, the opinion omitted Ginsburg’s language from VMI that the government interest had to be “exceedingly persuasive