Court opinions The case involves a proclamation 9645 issued by president Donald Trump restricting some people from different nations accessing the United States without authentic travel documents. However, Hawaii is one of the affected states together with other countries and groups of people challenged the decisions in a US district court. The district court initially issued a short order to hold the proclamation as Hawaii sort reversal of the declaration. Hawaii argued that the proclamation violated the first amendment act of the US constitution. Also, the petitioners pointed out that the president exercised powers beyond capacity through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The defendant appealed the decision of issuing an injunction on the proclamation where the court of appeal unhealed the district court decision with the same argument that the defendant violated the INA.

Trump was not satisfied and took the matter to the supreme court which overturned the appeal as well as the decision of the district court. The argument given in the court of appeal pointed out that the proclamation was constitutional and that president had not excised powers that exceeded the ones prescribed in the INA. Five supreme court judges concurred to overturn the appeal and the district court ruling while four did not agree with the verdict. There were different opinions given by the judges to support their positions. This study will look at some of the views decided by the supreme court judges on the case to show how they were incorrect.

Opinion decided incorrectly

Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justice Anthony Kennedy opinion was supporting the ruling by the majority judges to lift the restriction on the executive order issued by the president although the judge argued that the executive order was unconstitutional. The reason why the judge supported the retention of the executive order was that the speech and actions of the executive arms or government officials were not subject to any review by the judicial system.   Justice Anthony from that opinion advice the government officials to act by the constitution irrespective of the immunity from the review of their actions.

The opinion that the speech, decisions, and actions by the executive members of the government are not subject to review by the judiciary is incorrect. Review of the actions means the ability of any court to look at the proclamation, regulation, treaty, or any statute by the government administration whether it is against the constitution of the united states. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the judicial system in America but the powers on which cases the supreme court should reside remained with the Congress. Although the constitution is not thorough in explaining whether the court can review such administration actions, the history, provisions, and structure of the constitution infer the authority of the courts to make such investigations.

Several decisions by the supreme court show the authority of the judiciary to make reviews. One of them was established in 1796 in the case Hylton V. United States. The case was a direct challenge to how constitutional an act of Congress was. The bill is known as the Carriage act of 1794 that allows the government to impose a carriage tax. The court, without looking at whether the constitution allowed them to do such reviews initiated the process of assessing the claims brought by the plaintiff on whether the act was unconstitutional. The court finally found that the plaintiff claims were invalid pointing out that the parliament’s bill on the carriage was within the constitution. In this case, although the court did not overturn the bill made by Congress or a government official, it shows that the court had the power to do such reviews. The court would not have initiated the process even if the decision was to favor the government officials if it knew that it did not have the authority to make such rulings.

The case above might seem weak to confirm that the judicially has the power to review government officials’ decisions because there were no comments against the government. However, the case Marbury v. Madison offers a more convincing direction on judicial power. In the case, the court was supposed to evaluate whether it was constitutional for a president to nominate judges a few days before exiting from power. The court held that although the president could make nominations, it was unconstitutional to make them when exiting the office as a way propagating personal motives.  The appointment was therefore termed illegal, a decision which was against a government official and that interpreted the constitution.

The preceding judge in the case, Justice Marshall, used the law that the Congress had passed allowing it to decide some cases similar to the Marbury v. Madison.  Judge Marshall in the case looked at the proceeding of the case and the law that gave them the power to proceed with the case leading to a confirmation that the Congress had expanded the jurisdiction of the supreme court beyond the original position set in the constitution. The ability to use such a law made the judge announce that the court had the authority to drop a code that may be against the constitution.  The case explains it well that the constitution did not mention on whether the court would review the constitution law made by the Congress but the Congress itself, which had the power to regulate the judicially allowed the courts to make such reviews later.

Another reason showing that the court has the power to review decisions made by the government officials on the basis whether they are within the law lies in the oath made by judges when assuming their duty. The judges swear that they will defend and protect the constitution as well as the rules set within the united states. It means that the judges have the power to check who goes against the law by trying to interpret what the constitution defines as right or wrong.

The supremacy clause article VI establishes that the officials in the judiciary should protect anything that the constitution or law of the US or any state establishes. It means that the judges are to interpret any action or decision made on whether it is within the constitution. The analysis shows that the decision made through Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion was not correct. The judge did not consider the precedent laws but only looked at what the constitution provided initially to conclude that the judicially could not review the proclamation made by the president on whether it was within the constitution.

Opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Clarence was on the majority side to hold that the executive order should have its way without restrictions. The argument for the position from Justice Clarence was that the district courts did not have the power to rule over global or national wide injunctions. The judge mentioned that there was a trend by the district courts to issue such directives even though no legislation is allowing them to exercise such powers. The judge continued to request the supreme court to bun district courts against presiding such matters. The opinion of the judge was to show the executive order did not have any restriction because the court that had issued restrictions did not have the power to do so.

The civil procedure 65 that governs injunctions does not specify the geographical jurisdiction under which the district courts should issue an order as the judge states. However, no legislation restricts the power of such courts to rule over federal injunction cases. There are several cases where the district court has issued a national wide injunction and with plaintiffs seeking the supreme court interpretation of the district court limitation on geographical .injunction but such limits are yet to exist.

One of such cases is the Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. Where a district declined to issue an injunction and monetary relief brought by an American against a united states’ Citizen about infringement of a trademark in Mexico. During the petition, the court of appeal upheld the decision made by the district court. The issue that arose, in that case, is that in a situation of excising its powers of equity, a district court can issue a command to a person to stop or perform an action beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The cases show that a district court can issue an injunction that is also covering all other states and districts that are outside its jurisdiction as long as it is exercising its power of equity.

Another case where a district court issued a national injunction is the Log Cabin Republicans v. the United States. In the case, Judge Philip of the California district court banned the military against enforcing a statute that restricted homosexuals from joining to serve in the military. The statute was a construct of the government where the judge mentioned that it was against the right of expression of US citizens.  The law was applying for anybody within the US who was a homosexual pointing out that the military would not recruit them. It, therefore, means that the court was hearing a case covering the whole nation and not a specific group of people or a district. The two cases show that the district courts have been solving cases where they issue injunctions covering the whole nation.

From the analysis the opinion by Justice Clarence that the district court did not have the power to issue an injunction with a national interest was incorrect. Further, the judge had mentioned that there was a trend by the district courts to issue such directives meaning that there was a recognition of such cases happening in lower courts. The attention was enough evidence that the district court could issue such injunctions. It was a bias to decide on the opinion since there are other cases where the lower courts had granted injunctions on covering a national jurisdiction.