{"id":245,"date":"2020-07-07T19:17:31","date_gmt":"2020-07-07T23:17:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/?page_id=245"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:21","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:21","slug":"examining-trump-v-hawaii-moving-forward-in-light-of-the-supreme-courts-adverse-holding-on-the-muslim-ban","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/in-print\/volume-12-issue-1-spring-2020\/examining-trump-v-hawaii-moving-forward-in-light-of-the-supreme-courts-adverse-holding-on-the-muslim-ban\/","title":{"rendered":"Examining Trump v. Hawaii: Moving Forward in Light of the Supreme Court&#8217;s Adverse Holding on the Muslim Ban"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 2\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<p>This Note dissects the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in <em>Trump v. Hawaii<\/em>, which held that the Muslim ban was not a violation of the First Amendment\u2019s Establishment Clause. Initially, the Note begins with a discussion of President Donald Trump\u2019s Islamophobic rhetoric, shedding light on the events leading up to the ban and providing context for why I choose to refer to Trump\u2019s executive orders as the Muslim ban, rather than travel ban. Then, it addresses the original Muslim ban, the subsequent watered-down versions of the ban, and the rationale used by federal courts in blocking it from taking effect. Subsequently, it discusses the Supreme Court\u2019s adverse holding in <em>Trump v. Hawaii<\/em>, highlighting both the majority and the dissent\u2019s reasoning. Then, the Note addresses the ramifications of the Muslim bans\u2014the direct impact on foreigners from the banned countries and their American family members. It also addresses why the waiver process\u2014a major reason why the Supreme Court majority upheld the ban\u2014is merely a superficial attempt at backtracking from blatant discrimination, and one that in practice, presents no meaningful alteration from the original ban. Afterwards, it discusses the impact of the 2016 election cycle on the increase of hate crimes in 2017 and the effect that the Muslim ban could have on the number of hate crimes in the future. Finally, the Note addresses current and potential pushback against the Supreme Court\u2019s adverse holding, including Muslim Advocate\u2019s challenge to the waiver process in <em>Emami v. Nielsen<\/em>. These potential actions are simply necessary first steps in undoing the effects of the Muslim ban.<\/p>\n<p>Continue Reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2020\/07\/GT-GCRP200005.pdf\">Examining <em>Trump v. Hawaii<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This Note dissects the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which held that the Muslim ban was not a violation of the First Amendment\u2019s Establishment Clause. Initially, the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2710,"featured_media":0,"parent":215,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-245","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2710"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":844,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/245\/revisions\/844"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/215"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/mcrp-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}