Kent v. Krent 2018

Date: Apr 02, 2018
Timing: 4:00 to 6:00 PM
Speakers : Dean Harold Krent, Prof. Kent Streseman
Venue : Chicago-Kent Auditorium

Kent v. Krent 2018: Trump v. Hawaii

Kent v. Krent is an opportunity for the 1L class to experience what an Appellate argument is and serves as a springboard as they prepare for their own arguments in their Legal Writing 2 class. 
Reception with drinks to follow!


Link to watch here!

Event Details


Prof. Kent Streseman
Dean Harold Krent


Kara Angeletti 
Jin To
Alexandrina Shrove
Margaret Kamm
Paula Panayi
Joshua Locke
(All judges are current members of Chicago-Kent’s Moot Court Honor Society)

About Kent v. Krent

Kent vs. Krent has become a proud annual tradition of the American Constitution Society. Each year, just after our 1L students have finished their appellate brief for legal writing class and are beginning to prepare for their Charles Evans Hughes Oral Arguments, we ask Dean Krent and Professor Streseman to present oral arguments on a case that is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our “Supreme Court” is composed of current Chicago-Kent students, faculty, and is led by a prominent figure in the legal field. This year, our Chief Justice is Daaron Kimmel, who works for the Illinois Office of the Appellate Defender. Mr. Kimmel argued for the defendant in People v. Minnis, a challenge in the Illinois Supreme Court to our state’s social media law for registered sex offenders. Mr. Kimmel will be joined on the bench by Chicago-Kent faculty member, Steven Heyman, and current second and third year members of the Chicago-Kent Moot Court Honors Society.

This Year’s Case: Trump v. Hawaii

Dean Harold Krent and Professor Kent Streseman will present oral arguments in the currently pending 9th Circuit case of Trump v. Hawaii. The Court granted cert on four issues. They are going to focus on the second and third issues: whether the “travel ban” proclamation exceeds the president’s authority under the INA and whether it violates the Establishment Clause. They are not going to grapple with justiciability and the scope of the injunction. 

Factual Background and Procedural Posture

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769 (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 Executive Order No. 13,780 (EO-2). Section 2(c) of 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.” Section 6(b) suspended the entry of any individual under USRAP once 50,000 refugees have entered the United States in fiscal year 2017. The effective date of the order was March 16, 2017. EO-2 was subject to swift litigation as well.

On June 14, just before Section 2(c) of EO-2 was by its terms set to expire, President Trump issued a memorandum to Executive Branch officials declaring the effective date of each enjoined provision of EO–2 to be the date on which the injunctions in these cases “are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.” The government sought review in both cases, making arguments both on the merits of the cases and on procedural issues.

In a per curiam opinion issued simultaneously with an order granting certiorari, the Court granted the government’s applications for a stay of the preliminary injunction with respect to Sections 6(a) and (b) of Executive Order 13,780 (EO-2), thereby allowing enforcement of those provisions. Under the Court’s ruling, the government may enforce Section 6(a) except as to any “individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” nor may such an individual be excluded under Section 6(b).

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

“Trump v. Hawaii.” Oyez, 27 Mar. 2018,

Issues Presented

  1. Are the plaintiffs’ claims challenging the president’s authority to issue the Proclamation reviewable (“justiciable”) in federal court?
  2. Does the president have the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation?
  3. Is the global injunction barring enforcement of parts of the Proclamation impermissibly overbroad?
  4. Does the Proclamation violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?

“Trump v. Hawaii.” Oyez, 27 Mar. 2018,