Elshikh v. Trump, also known as Hawaii v. Trump, was a significant federal court case filed in 2017 challenging the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769 (commonly referred to as the 'Muslim Ban') and subsequent revised orders. The lawsuit was initiated by the State of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh, a U.S. citizen, clinical psychologist, and imam based in Hawaii, whose Syrian mother-in-law was prevented from immigrating due to the order's restrictions on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). The case argued that the executive order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by discriminating against Muslims, as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act and other constitutional protections. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, the court issued a temporary restraining order on February 3, 2017, halting enforcement of key provisions nationwide. The case progressed through multiple iterations as the Trump administration revised the order twice (Executive Order 13780 in March 2017 and Presidential Proclamation 9645 in September 2017), leading to further litigation. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson upheld the injunction, citing evidence of religious animus based on Trump's campaign statements. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld the block, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where a 5-4 decision upheld the third version of the travel ban, ruling it was within presidential authority over national security and immigration. The ban remained in effect until January 20, 2021, when President Joe Biden revoked it on his first day in office. This case highlighted tensions between executive power, religious freedom, and immigration policy, influencing public discourse on Islamophobia and civil rights. Dr. Elshikh's involvement stemmed from his personal stake and advocacy for Muslim Americans; he represented the Hawaii chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The litigation was supported by various civil rights organizations, underscoring networks of legal activism against perceived discriminatory policies.