Assignment Overview
As a White House attorney, you have been tasked with evaluating the legality of President Daniel Victor’s proposed executive actions in response to the national security threat posed by members of the extremist faction Thor’s Hammer. Your assignment is to draft a memorandum that analyzes whether the President has the legal authority to:
Suspend the entry of all Swedish citizens into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) based solely on their nationality.
Detain all Swedish nationals currently present in the U.S. until a comprehensive national security investigation is completed, considering the precedent set in Korematsu v. United States (1944).
Your analysis must apply Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018) to the facts presented in the assignment. While you are not required to read Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the full opinion and excerpts from the case are provided for reference.
Expectations and Evaluation Criteria
You will not be evaluated on the strength of your legal analysis or the correctness of your conclusions. There are many legal issues involved that exceed the scope of this class. Instead, your memorandum will be assessed based on:
Clarity of writing – Your memo should be well-organized and easy to follow.
Concise summarization of facts and law – You should provide clear summaries of the relevant facts and key legal principles (i.e., rules), and your discussion/analysis should be clear, regardless of whether it is legally right.
Precision in writing – Your memo should be free of unnecessary or vague language and should present ideas clearly and directly.
This assignment is an exercise in effective legal communication, not an advanced legal analysis. Your goal is to communicate legal findings effectively and concisely in a professional format. This exercise will help you develop skills in summarization, precision, and structured writing.
Memorandum Requirements
You must use the memorandum template provided for the Week 2 homework assignment.
Your memo should focus on summarizing and applying the relevant law, particularly Trump v. Hawaii.
You may, but are not required, to conduct additional research and include outside legal sources in your discussion.
You should write in a formal, professional tone, as if drafting a memo for a government official.
CASE FILE
Factual Scenario
The year is 2030, and a newly founded religious movement, Valhalla Rising, has gained significant traction in Sweden. While most of its adherents practice their faith peacefully, a radical faction within the movement, known as Thor’s Hammer, has become increasingly militant. This extremist sect believes that the United States is the root cause of global corruption and suffering, advocating for its destruction.
Following the collapse of a failed Russian state, intelligence agencies confirm that nuclear weapons from former Russian stockpiles have fallen into the hands of rogue actors. Intelligence assessments indicate that members of Thor’s Hammer have acquired multiple nuclear devices.
In June 2030, U.S. authorities apprehend Johan Lundgren, a Swedish national legally residing in the U.S. on a work visa, at the Port of Los Angeles. Lundgren is caught attempting to smuggle a small nuclear device into the country, allegedly acting on direct orders from Thor’s Hammer leadership in Sweden. Immediate security assessments suggest that other operatives may have already infiltrated the U.S., and additional nuclear weapons could be inside the country or en route.
Tensions between the United States and Sweden escalated following Lundgren’s capture. The Swedish government is currently controlled by a political party with strong ties to Thor’s Hammer, raising concerns about its alignment with the extremist group. Even before Lundgren’s arrest, Sweden had been increasingly uncooperative in sharing intelligence on its nationals seeking entry into the U.S. The President of the U.S., Daniel Victor, has publicly criticized Sweden for failing to provide sufficient information about Lundgren before he was granted a work visa, arguing that greater transparency could have prevented the attempted attack.
In response to growing concerns over Sweden’s cooperation in immigration and security matters, President Victor issued Executive Order 14583, directing a comprehensive review of Sweden’s compliance with U.S. immigration security protocols. The review, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, concluded that Sweden has consistently failed to provide adequate information on the criminal history and suspected terrorist affiliations of its nationals applying for U.S. visas. The report further found that Swedish authorities had withheld critical intelligence on multiple individuals with ties to Thor’s Hammer, raising serious national security concerns.
Proposed Executive Action
In response to the national security threat, President Victor is considering taking executive action that would:
Suspend entry of all Swedish citizens into the United States, effectively banning all Swedish immigration, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).
Detain all Swedish nationals currently present in the U.S. until a comprehensive national security investigation is completed.
The President believes that these measures are necessary to prevent additional terrorist attempts and to ensure that no further nuclear weapons have been smuggled into the country.
Question Presented
As a White House attorney, you have been tasked with evaluating the legality of the President’s proposed executive acts. Specifically, you must answer the following questions:
Under the INA, does the President have the legal authority to suspend the entry of all Swedish citizens into the United States solely based on their nationality?
Can the President, relying on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), lawfully detain all Swedish nationals currently present in the U.S. until a comprehensive national security investigation is completed?
Summary of Korematsu and Excerpts
In Korematsu, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the exclusion and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, defied an exclusion order and was subsequently convicted. He argued that the order violated his Fifth Amendment rights by discriminating based on race and national origin. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu’s individual rights, citing the wartime imperative as justification for the exclusion.
Excerpts from Korematsu
“Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.” (Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. at 219-220.)
“Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because…the [Executive Branch]…decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily.” (Id. at 223.)
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|