International Law
847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017)
Study notes for Washington v. Trump: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Executive orders must comply with constitutional protections, and courts will rigorously scrutinize actions perceived to discriminate against specific groups.
Washington v. Trump is a pivotal case regarding the balance between national security and individual rights. The Ninth Circuit's ruling emphasized the need for thorough judicial review over executive actions, particularly when such actions are perceived to target specific demographic groups. The court underscored the significance of the First Amendment in relation to religious discrimination and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, showcasing how executive orders must align with constitutional protections even in matters of national security.
One critical point for discussion is the legal standard applied for temporary restraining orders and irreparable harm. The Ninth Circuit found that the states had sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding both constitutional claims, which set a high bar for the government to justify withholding entry based on a perceived national security threat.
TRUMP: Temporary Restriction Unlawful, Minority Protection.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Muslim Ban Cases (e.g., Trump v. Hawai'i) | Washington v. Trump focused more on immediate harms and procedural due process, while Trump v. Hawai'i addressed broader implications and finality in terms of the legitimacy of the ban. |
| Kleindienst v. Mandel | Kleindienst involved a lesser level of scrutiny and focused on the admission of foreign nationals without the strong allegations of discrimination present in Washington v. Trump. |
Upholding constitutional rights against executive actions will ensure that national security does not come at the cost of discrimination and the erosion of civil liberties.
Restricting the executive's ability to swiftly act on national security concerns could hinder the government's ability to protect its citizens from potential threats.
This case is often featured in exams to test understanding of the balance between executive power and constitutional rights, particularly in immigration and national security contexts.