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

Anonymous

2 people stand before, one christian one muslim; they are both from one of the countries listed in the EO. SURPRISE!!! They are treated EXACTLY the same!!!

I.E. - "Muslim Ban" is a lie. The EO is not a "Muslim ban" to say so is disingenuous.

Anonymous

You proved the point why the ban is unconstitutional and wrong. Yes the ban would limit all citizens from the target countries. This is profoundly against American values. If a citizen of a foreign nation is issued a visa codified and approved by a government official, then they are allowed to travel freely within our nation. A blanket ban disrupts tourists, students, as well as ma and pa's coming to visit kids and grandkids. Target the terrorist, don't make every person from a "banned" country out to be a terrorist.

Anonymous

^^Then argue that. Not "muslim ban" emotional BS.

The president has the authority, see here - http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf

The ACLU's case is based solely on religion, so your comment is N/A. At best it proves the baseless claim the ACLU has....

Anonymous

interesting, saw a response that linked the ruling from the federal judge in Boston and calling your comment useless, now its gone.

I guess that hit a nerve at the ACLU...

Anonymous

Yes, both cristian and Muslim have their rights violated in your example. It is called DUE PROCESS, which REQUIRES the government to presume innocence rather than presuming guilt.

Anonymous

another off topic response. Due Process? Rights? not relevant.

Muslim ban, establishment clause, this case in particular.

Recovering Prog...

From the dissent, "In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited."
Given earliIn looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith, rather than looking for bad faith on the face of the executive action itself, the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited."
I think the ACLU would be worried about establishing precedents based on campaign rhetoric given the unending bashing of "clingers" by left of center politicians and their ongoing attacks on religion. Based on your current assessments, Burwell v Hobby Lobby should have been dismissed outright because of the "clinger" statements made by the former president. I would think this ruling would affect your work for reproductive rights in relation to working with a religious organization rather profoundly if SCOTUS upholds this ruling since any anti-religious rhetoric would automatically be disqualifying. The unintended consequences of this ruling (using campaign rhetoric), plain text reading of the EO, its narrower redraft, and previous precedents would make one think that SCOTUS would over rule the lower courts decisions. Also, will the notorious RBG be forced to recuse herself due to her frequent and obvious animus toward POTUS?

Anonymous

ACLU are faggots who deserve to get AIDS.

Anonymous

ACLU are faggots who deserve to get AIDS.

Anonymousc

Please ACLU need your views on Sharia Law because we already have problems
.

Pages

Stay Informed