"The President [..may..] suspend the entry of all aliens or
any class of aliens whenever he “finds” that their entry would be
detrimental to the interests of the United States”

Key Ruling: The President has "broad discretion" to suspend the entry of non-citizens into the United States.

Trump was on trial from the day he stepped foot in office, as evidenced by the history behind the case Trump v. Hawaii. On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed his FIRST executive order (EO-1), which, among other things, suspended entry for 90 days of foreign nationals from seven countries identified by Congress or the Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks. EO-1 was immediately challenged in federal district court, and the judge entered a nationwide temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of several of its provisions. A panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the government's emergency motion to stay the order pending appeal. Rather than continuing to litigate the matter, the government announced that it would revoke that order and issue a new one.

On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued another executive order, EO-2 directed that entry of nationals from six of the seven countries designated in EO-1 be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of the order, citing a need for time to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. Section 6(a) directed that applications for refugee status and travel of refugees into the United States under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) be suspended for 120 days from the effective date "to review the adequacy of USRAP application and adjudication procedures."

On September 24, 2017—the same day EO-2 was expiring—President Trump issued a Proclamation restricting travel to the United States by citizens from eight countries. That Proclamation was challenged in federal court as attempting to exercise power that neither Congress nor the Constitution vested in the president. The Supreme Court granted review.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the 5–4 majority, which went in favor of Trump. The majority first considered Hawaii's argument that Trump's September 2017 order exceeds the president’s authority under federal immigration laws. However, they found that under Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the president has "broad discretion" to suspend the entry of non-citizens into the United States. The Proclamation was the result of a “worldwide, multi-agency review” that determined that entry by certain non-citizens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Thus, the Proclamation does not exceed any statutory power of the president.

The Court also considered the claim (echoed by the mainstream media and Marxist Twitter) that Establishment Clause might be violated. On its face, the Supreme Court majority found the Proclamation did not favor or disfavor any particular religion. But even looking behind the face of the Proclamation, the majority found that the facts that many majority-Muslim countries were not subject to restrictions and that some non-majority-Muslim countries were subject to the restrictions supported the government's contention that the Proclamation was not based on anti-Muslim animus and was instead based on "a sufficient national security justification."

This remains relevant as Joe Biden attempts to wiggle out of responsibility for the crisis at our southern border. We must remember that, through executive orders, the authority has been vested in the president to control the flow of non-citizens into the country and, with a wave of the pen, he could correct the issue without any LEGAL pushback. Of course, due to pushback from the Woke left base, he is actively choosing not to execute this power, while simultaneously looking to use executive power to limit our constitutional freedoms due to the pandemic.