The Supreme Court’s judgment in Trump v. Hawai’i validated a prohibition on entry to the United States from several largely Muslim-majority countries, and at the same time repudiated a longstanding precedent associated with the Japanese-American internment of World War II. This Article closely analyzes the relationship of these twin holdings. It uses their dichotomous valances as a lens onto the legal scope for discriminatory action by the federal executive. Parsing the various ways in which the internment of the 1940s and the 2017 exclusion order can be reconciled, the Article identifies a generative tension between the two holdings. Contrary to the Court’s apparent assumption, the internment cannot easily be rejected if the 2017 travel ban is embraced: There is no analytically defensible and practicably tractable boundary between the two. Recognizing this disjunction and explaining why the Court’s effort to separate past from present practice cannot prevail, I argue, reveals what might be called an “Article II discretion to discriminate.” By identifying and mapping this species of executive discretion, the Article offers a novel critique of the Court’s recent construction of executive power in light of historical precedent and consequentialist justifications. It further illuminates the downstream distributive and regulatory consequences of executive power in the context of ongoing judicial constriction of Article II discretion over regulatory choices.

中文翻译：

---

第二条和反歧视规范

最高法院在特朗普诉夏威夷案中的判决证实了禁止从几个穆斯林占多数的国家进入美国的禁令，同时否定了与二战中日裔美国人拘禁相关的长期先例。本文密切分析了这对双胞胎控股之间的关系。它使用他们的二分法作为审视联邦行政部门歧视性行动的法律范围的镜头。文章分析了 1940 年代的拘禁和 2017 年的排除令可以调和的各种方式，确定了两种控股之间的生成张力。与法院的明显假设相反，如果接受 2017 年的旅行禁令，就不能轻易拒绝拘留：两者之间没有分析上可辩护且实际易于处理的界限。我认为，认识到这种脱节并解释为什么法院努力将过去与现在的做法分开的努力不能占上风，揭示了可能被称为“第 II 条歧视的自由裁量权”。通过识别和描绘这种行政裁量权，该文章根据历史先例和后果论理由对法院最近对行政权力的构建提出了新的批评。它进一步阐明了在第二条对监管选择自由裁量权的司法限制的背景下，行政权力的下游分配和监管后果。” 通过识别和描绘这种行政裁量权，本文根据历史先例和后果论理由对法院最近对行政权力的构建提出了新的批评。它进一步阐明了在第二条对监管选择的​​自由裁量权持续受到司法限制的背景下，行政权力的下游分配和监管后果。” 通过识别和描绘这种行政裁量权，本文根据历史先例和后果论理由对法院最近对行政权力的构建提出了新的批评。它进一步阐明了在第二条对监管选择自由裁量权的司法限制的背景下，行政权力的下游分配和监管后果。