Early in his presidency, President Donald Trump took three presidential actions denying individuals from countries with large Muslim populations entry into the United States. On their faces, the actions do not appear to be discriminatory. However, when taking into consideration his personal comments and tweets exhibiting an antagonism towards Muslim individuals, these actions seemed to reveal a policy intending to disparagef oreign nationals on the basis of their religion. In 2018, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Hawaii that these actions are not displays of animus by the Executive Branch or are unconstitutionally discriminatory. This Comment addresses where the Supreme Court has found animus in the past, and how its decision in Trump v. Hawaii is inconsistent with its precedent in balancing the animus doctrine with executive power.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.