Trump v. Hawaii
Headline: Court vacates judgment and remands, finding challenge to temporary suspension of entry for aliens and refugees under Sections 2(c) and 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780 moot and to be dismissed.
Holding: The Court vacated the lower judgment and remanded, directing the Ninth Circuit to dismiss as moot the challenge to the Executive Order’s temporary suspension of entry for aliens and refugees because those provisions expired.
- Dismisses the challenge to the Executive Order’s temporary suspension of entry as legally moot.
- Leaves the Executive Order’s legality unresolved by the Court.
- Sends the case back to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss.
Summary
Background
A legal challenge was brought against Sections 2(c) and 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780, which temporarily suspended the entry of aliens and refugees. The Supreme Court agreed to review that challenge to resolve the dispute. While the case was pending, the challenged provisions expired on their own terms, changing the posture of the appeal.
Reasoning
The Court concluded the appeal no longer presented a live controversy because the provisions at issue had expired. Following its established practice in such situations, the Court set aside the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the challenge as moot. The opinion explicitly states that the Justices express no view on whether the Executive Order was lawful on the merits.
Real world impact
Because the decision rests on the provisions’ expiration, the Court did not rule on the underlying legality of the travel and entry restrictions. The immediate effect is procedural: the specific challenge to those expired provisions is dismissed, and the lower-court judgment is vacated. This outcome is not a final determination of the policy’s legality and could be revisited if a live dispute returns to the courts.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor dissented from the order that vacated the judgment and stated she would have dismissed the Court’s review as improvidently granted instead.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?