The Muslim Ban ‘Drips With Religious Intolerance, Animus, and Discrimination,’ Rules Federal Appeals Court

We should all feel proud today. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the Muslim ban to go into effect. Step by step, point by point, the court laid out what has been clear from the start: The president promised to ban Muslims from the United States, and his executive orders are an attempt to do just that.

The bottom-line question, the court recognized, is whether the Constitution establishes the rules for everyone, “rulers and people,” police officers and presidents, “equally in war and in peace.” And the court answered resoundingly that it does. The government, the court explained, had repeatedly asked the court “to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action.” But the court refused: “We cannot shut our eyes to such evidence when it stares us in the face.”

And that evidence is clear and compelling.

While the text of the Muslim ban “speaks with vague words of national security,” the court recognized that in context it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The ban’s message of religious condemnation is contrary to the bedrock constitutional requirement that the government remain neutral among religions: “When the government chooses sides on religious issues, the inevitable result is hatred, disrespect and even contempt towards those who fall on the wrong side of the line.”

The framers of the Constitution recognized how dangerous taking sides would be for our country, and the Fourth Circuit today vindicated this fundamental principle.

One of the members of the court, Judge Wynn, pointed out the historical context. “We have matured from the lessons learned by past experiences documented, for example, in Dred Scott and Korematsu,” he explained, referring to the shameful decisions permitting slavery and Japanese internment. “Laid bare,” Judge Wynn explained, “this Executive Order is no more than what the President promised before and after his election: naked invidious discrimination against Muslims.”

And that is unconstitutional.

We should all feel proud because this is not just a victory for the plaintiffs in this case. And it is not just a victory for millions of Muslims and immigrants and their families, friends, and neighbors. This is a victory for all of us, for the independence of our courts, the force of our Constitution, and the rule of law. No one is above the law, not even the president.

These cases are not over. The Ninth Circuit recently heard arguments in another challenge to the Muslim ban, and a decision is expected soon. And the government may appeal to the Supreme Court. But today is an enormous victory for American values, one we should all cherish.

View comments (25)
Read the Terms of Use


Thank you ACLU

Liberals are insane

Celebrate while you can. It will be short lived. There are no doubt 5 votes on the Supreme Court to uphold this travel ban. Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and For such will vote to uphold this. Thank goodness we got For such on the Court to help fight the ignorance of liberalism.

Conservatives a...

Luckily the Supreme Court sees through the bullshit and probably won't accept the case and uphold the lower court.

I'm not against tracking, capturing and banning terrorist. However, wholesale profiling is wrong, anti-American and anti-freedom. Whatever happened to "don't fence me in.." oh yeah it died with the whitemans fear of everything in the world not white.

Philip M. Kober...

I would bet that the Supreme Court may not even grant certiorari, but then I don't want your money!

Philip M. Kober...

I would bet that the Supreme Court may not even grant certiorari, but then I don't want your money!


You mean, our ILLEGITIMATE supreme court, created by the senators that value politics over country.

Concerned Conse...

I true conservative would be concerned with upholding the values our nation is based on above all else. Before a (false) sense of security, they would (and are) concerned with if that (supposed) security is derived from an act that would undermine the very fabric of the ideals our nation is founded upon.

If you're more worried about keeping out terrorists than keeping to the ideals of our constitution and our nation, I say let them in... they've already won.


It will keep blocked in the supreme court and the reason is plain simple: it's stupid, ineffective, and unconstitutional. It violates constitutional rights of three millions of "American Citizens" originally from affected countries, not being able to see relatives or rejoin with spouses in some cases. It's also stupid and ineffective to label or ban people based on their nationality and/or country of citizenship, keep in mind 16 out of 19 of 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, the country Trump made an arm deal of 110 billion dollars. We need a proper and stringent vetting system, not just a blanket ban based on nationality or race. If the Manchester bomber was alive he could still travel to the U.S. even without a visa (assuming authorities didn't know he traveled to Libya) because he was U.K. citizen, not a dual citizen, born in the U.K. Stupid plans like travel ban wastes money and human l resources to practice ineffective measure which ultimately does make us less safe.


Stop using the death of my loved one, whom you never knew and never will, to push your hateful shit.
He was NOTHING like that & you're NOT doing it in his name:
Eric L. Bennett


Why the hell is everyone SUDDENLY so upset about HIM making an arms deal with Saudi Arabia when she did that too and you didn't goddam CARE when I mentioned it. Absolutely EVERY politician on the face of the earth is in that royal family's goddam pocket & absolutely EVERY one of them will hear about it again when they get ready to make their little journey into whatever comes after THIS pathetic world.
Just about ANYthing, even a world of Ant People, is better than the one we live in right at this very moment in time.


Stay Informed