Reference no: EM133416527

In January 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to prevent visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries categorized as having a heightened terror risk from entering the United States for a 90-day period. The state of Hawaii challenged the constitutionality of Trump's order in court. The president revoked his order but in September 2017 issued a similar, revised proclamation. Hawaii filed suit again and argued that the president did not have authority under Article II or from congressional statute to ban travelers from the listed countries. It also argued that the order was overbroad, and that, in targeting Muslims, it violated the establishment clause. Hawaii won its claim in the lower courts. The president appealed and the Supreme Court took the case, Trump v. Hawaii. The Supreme Court's first question was whether the courts had the authority to act on Hawaii's claim against the president's action. However, in its ruling, the Court looked past the initial question and found that President Trump's actions did not violate the president's constitutional or statutory authority, and the Court upheld the September 2017 proclamation limiting entry by the banned nationals.

1. Identify the legal concern that is common to both Trump v. Hawaii (2017) and Baker v. Carr (1962).

2. Based on the concern identified in part A, explain why the facts of Baker v. Carr led to a different holding than the holding in Hawaii v. Trump.

3. Explain how a presidential administration could use the decision in Hawaii v. Trump to further shape United States foreign policy.