Trump v. Hawaii
Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Trump Administration’s travel ban against several Muslim-majority countries. This decision -reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hirabayashi, Korematsu, and Yasui - is just another example of the the Supreme Court unwilling to hold the President accountable. Justice Roberts filed the majority opinion while Justices Breyer and Sotomayor filed dissenting opinions.
Amicus Briefs by AAPI Organizations in Trump v. Hawaii
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of briefs filed. Contact action@stoprepeatinghistory.org if you would like your organization’s brief listed.
“By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another.”
Brief on Behalf of Jay Hirabayashi, Holly Yasui, and Karen Korematsu
By the Fred. T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at Seattle University School of Law in partnership with the coram nobis legal teams and pro bono counsel by attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Supporting organizations: Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Hispanic National Bar Association, Japanese American Citizens League-Honolulu Chapter, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, National Bar Association, and South Asian Bar Association of North America.
Brief by National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and 62 National, Local Asian Pacific American Bar Associations
By James W. Kim of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Andrew Genz, Philip Levine, Llewelyn Engel, and Matthew Girgenti, Professor Radha Pathak of Whittier Law School, and Albert Giang of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
Brief by Japanese American Citizens League
By Walter Dellinger, Duke Law professor and former U.S. Solicitor General, co-counsel George T. Frampton, Jr., and Joseph Roth of Osborn Maledon and Thomas Frampton, a Climenko Fellow at Harvard Law School.
Readings
"Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling must not repeat errors of Japanese internment."
By Peter Irons in the San Francisco Chronicle
June 12, 2018
“The parallels between the cases challenging the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the travel ban case are both striking and disturbing. Both arose out of war and involved orders of the commander in chief. Both targeted a minority group, amid fears of sabotage and espionage, and of “terrorist” attacks on our soil. And both featured a hidden report, withheld from the court.”
“A decision that will live in infamy."
By Noah Feldman in Bloomberg Opinion
June 26, 2018
“In what may be the worst decision since the infamous Korematsu case, when the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the court today by a 5-4 vote upheld President Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban.”
"How the Supreme Court replaced one injustice with another."
By Karen Korematsu in the New York Times
June 27, 2018
“When President Trump used questionable evidence to issue executive orders last year banning immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, I heard the same kind of stereotypes that targeted the Japanese-Americans in World War II being used against Muslims. So I, along with the children of Mr. Hirabayashi and Mr. Yasui, asked the Supreme Court to reject President Trump’s orders. We pointed to our fathers’ cases as an urgent warning against executive power run amok.”
Neal Katyal argued Trump v. Hawaii at each level of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court.
Former Acting US Solicitor General Neal Katyal talks about Japanese American incarceration, Stop Repeating History, and the Muslim Travel Ban.
“For decades, Korematsu has been viewed as a cautionary tale. But until Hawaii, it had never been overturned—a fact that set it apart from its fellow antiprecedents. As a renounced decision still on the books, it served as a stark reminder of failed legal reasoning and the dangers of blindly adhering to the government’s assertions. Given this legacy, it seemed only natural that in overturning Korematsu, the Court would strictly adhere to these lessons. After all, as Richard Primus articulately put it, “the court is the chief narrator of American constitutional history, so an ugly chapter from the past can never be fully closed until the court itself writes the better ending.””