The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii. Since Donald Trump issued his first travel ban order in January 2017, I have written numerous Volokh Conspiracy posts on various iterations of the travel ban policy, and the legal challenges to them. Here are links to what I think are some of the more notable ones:
Making America Cruel Again—Trump's Executive Order on Refugees (My initial critique of the very first travel ban order (focusing mostly on moral and policy issues rather than legal ones).
Why Trump's Refugee Order is Unconstitutional (explanation of why the original Travel Ban was unconstitutional).
Thoughts on the Appellate Court Ruling Against Trump's Immigration Order (my analysis of the Ninth Circuit ruling against Travel Ban 1.0—including an explanation of why it is both appropriate and necessary for courts to consider Trump's campaign statements as evidence of unconstitutional discriminatory motive).
So What if Trump's Travel Ban Order Might be Constitutional if Another President Issued it? (my critique of a common defense of the travel ban).
Trump's Revised Travel Ban is Still Cruel and Still Unconstitutional (my initial critique of Travel Ban 2.0).
Trump's Newest Travel Ban Order Has Many of the Same Flaws as the Old (explanation of why Travel Ban 3.0 is illegal for most the same reasons as its predecessors).
Supreme Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Trump's Travel Ban (my analysis of the Supreme Court's partial upholding and partial rejection of the lower court preliminary injunctions against Travel Ban 2.0).
Constitutional Law Scholars' Amicus Brief in Travel Ban 3.0 Case Explains why the Bill of Rights Restricts Federal Power Over Immigration (highlights of the amicus brief I coauthored on behalf of myself and a cross-ideological group of legal scholars).
Don't Let Trump's Travel Ban Become a Road Map for Discriminatory Policies (the dangers of a potential Supreme Court ruling holding that courts are not permitted to consider Trump's campaign statements as evidence of discriminatory motivation).
Appeals Court Rules that Trump's Travel Ban 3.0 is Unconstitutional (my thoughts on the Fourth Circuit ruling holding that Travel Ban 3.0 is unconstitutional because it is qualifies as religious discrimination against Muslims).
Appeals Court Rules Against Trump's Travel Ban 3.0 (thoughts on the Ninth Circuit decision ruling that Travel Ban 3.0 violates immigration laws enacted by Congress).
Supreme Court Dismisses Travel Ban Case as Moot—But the Legal Fight Over the Issue Will Continue (My analysis of the Court's dismissal of the cases against Travel Ban 2.0, and prediction that the issue would soon return to the Court because Travel Ban 3.0 has most of the same flaws as its predecessors—a prediction soon vindicated by events).
Supreme Court Lifts Temporary Injunctions Blocking Trump's Travel Ban 3.0 (what to make of the Supreme Court's decision to let Travel Ban 3.0 go into effect until the Court reaches a final decision on its legality).
UPDATE: Earlier today, The Hill published an op ed I wrote on the Bill of Rights and travel ban, coauthored with Michael Mannheimer (who also coauthored the amicus brief on which the op ed is largely based).