Right to Travel

In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether President Trump’s "travel ban" (Proclamation 9645), which restricted entry from several Muslim-majority nations, violated constitutional rights, including the right to travel and protections against religious discrimination.

The plaintiffs argued the ban unlawfully targeted Muslims and burdened individuals’ freedom to travel internationally. The Court upheld the ban 5-4, prioritizing national security but sparking debate over constitutional limits on executive power.

Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause: Did the ban infringe on the right to travel for immigrants and U.S. residents with foreign ties? First Amendment’s Establishment Clause: Did the ban reflect religious animus against Muslims?

• Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
• First Amendment’s Establishment Clause
• Compensation for medical bills
• Government Argued the proclamation was a national security measure, not religion-based, and fell within presidential authority over immigration.

• 1. Lower Courts

  Multiple federal courts blocked earlier versions of the ban, citing religious discrimination.

• 2. Supreme Court Review

  Focused on whether the proclamation exceeded statutory or constitutional authority.

• 3. Key Precedent

  Cited Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) in debates over national security vs. civil liberties, though the Court distinguished the cases.

The majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, deferred to the executive branch on national security, rejecting claims of religious bias. However, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent likened the reasoning to Korematsu. While the ban was upheld, the case highlighted tensions between the right to travel, religious freedom, and executive power. It remains a cautionary tale about constitutional scrutiny in immigration policy.