On Wednesday, April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the biggest cases of the year: Trump v. Hawaii, the challenge to the latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s efforts to restrict travel to the United States by nationals from certain countries.
The federal government contends that a ruling for the challengers would “hamstring” the president’s ability to conduct foreign relations and protect the national security; the challengers counter that allowing the so-called “travel ban” to stand will not only preclude over 150 million people, overwhelmingly Muslim, from coming to the United States, but it will also consolidate “breathtakingly vast” power in the executive branch.
Joining us to discuss these important constitutional questions are Josh Blackman and Joshua Matz.
FULL PODCAST
PARTICIPANTS
Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law Houston. He blogs at JoshBlackman.com and has written dozens of blog posts, editorials, and articles on the Trump v. Hawaii case.
Joshua Matz is of counsel at Gupta Wessler PLLC and Kaplan & Company LLP. He is the publisher of the Take Care blog. He filed an amicus brief (with Robbie Kaplan) on behalf of constitutional law scholars in Trump v. Hawaii, on behalf of the respondents.
Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.”
Related Decisions and Documents
- Oral argument audio in 17-965, Trump v. Hawaii, U.S. Supreme Court, argued April 25, 2018
- Docket and filings in 17-965, Trump v. Hawaii
- Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (September 27, 2017)
- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f)
- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S. Code § 1152(a)(1)(a)
- Opinion in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993), U.S. Supreme Court, June 21, 1993
- Opinion in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 1972
- Opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 1971
- Opinion in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), U.S. Supreme Court, January 16, 1950
Additional Resources
Our Interactive Constitution is the leading digital resource about the debates and text behind the greatest vision of human freedom in history, the U.S. Constitution. Here, scholars from across the legal and philosophical spectrum interact with each other to explore the meaning of each provision of our founding document.
Stay Connected and Learn More
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm.
The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Click here to learn more.
And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast.
Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at [email protected]
