Eleanor Finch
On January 27, 2017, then-US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the US for 90 days, suspending the entry of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibiting any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This order, often referred to as the Muslim Ban or Travel Ban, has been challenged in court multiple times on the grounds that it violates the US Constitution, specifically the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of equal treatment under the law. While lower courts initially blocked the ban, the Supreme Court allowed it to go into effect, and it remains in effect as of 2023. The ongoing legal debate centres on whether the ban constitutes religious discrimination, with opponents arguing that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and supporters invoking the immigration plenary power doctrine.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of Muslim Ban | January 27, 2017 |
| Issuer of the Ban | President Donald Trump |
| Type of Ban | Executive Order |
| Ban Details | Banned foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the US for 90 days, suspended entry to the US of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibited any other refugees from coming into the country for 120 days |
| Court Ruling | Violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution |
| Court Ruling Details | The ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment |
| Court Ruling Date | February 15, 2018 |
| Court | Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Court Rationale | The ban is "unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam" |
| Related Court Cases | Does v Trump; International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump; Aziz v. Trump; Washington v. Trump; Trump v. Hawaii; Zakzok v. Trump |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Trump's Muslim ban was motivated by religious animus
- The ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
- The ban violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law
- The ban violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and association
- The ban violates the Constitution's promise of religious liberty
Trump's Muslim ban was motivated by religious animus
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." The order banned foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the United States for 90 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibited any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This order, commonly known as the "Muslim ban," was superseded by Executive Order 13780 on March 6, 2017, which shared the same title.
Trump's Muslim ban has been widely criticized as being motivated by religious animus and violating the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations have challenged the ban in court, arguing that it violates the religious liberty guaranteed to Muslims and Americans of all faiths by the Constitution.
On February 7, 2017, the ACLU sued Trump on behalf of organizations that resettle refugees, charging that the Muslim ban violated the First Amendment. On February 9, 2017, the International Refugee Assistance Project also sued Trump, and the appeals court refused to reinstate the Muslim ban. On March 15, 2017, a federal court in Hawaii blocked Trump's second Muslim ban before it took effect, and a federal court in Maryland blocked the 90-day ban on immigration from six Muslim-majority countries.
On February 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the ban violated the First Amendment and found that the ban was "`unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.`" This ruling was a significant victory against anti-Muslim discrimination and sent a message that religious liberty may not be put up for a vote.
Trump's Muslim ban has had detrimental effects on Muslim, Arab, Iranian, Middle Eastern, and South Asian communities, with refugee numbers grinding to a halt and many applicants facing indefinite stalls in their immigration processes due to "extreme vetting." The ban has also contributed to a rise in hate crimes, particularly those motivated by religious animus, with Muslims facing heightened levels of harassment and violence.
In conclusion, Trump's Muslim ban was motivated by religious animus and violated the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion. The ban caused significant harm to the lives and liberties of those affected and represented a failure to uphold American values of religious and racial equality.
Citing the Constitution: 13th Amendment
You may want to see also
The ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Muslim Ban instituted by former President Donald Trump in 2017 was challenged in court by the ACLU and other civil rights organizations, who argued that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This clause, principally authored by James Madison, states that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion". In other words, the government is prohibited from establishing an official religion or taking actions that favour one religion over another.
The ban, which prevented foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, was seen as discriminating against a specific religious group and thus violating the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court has previously interpreted this clause as requiring a separation of church and state, and it has been applied to state laws and local ordinances. The Establishment Clause has also been used to challenge discriminatory laws in other contexts, such as in school districts.
In the case of the Muslim Ban, the Maryland court focused on the likelihood that the ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the ban was "unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam". This ruling sent a message that the religious liberty of Muslims may not be put up for a vote and that the Constitution's promise of religious liberty extends to followers of all faiths.
The Establishment Clause has been a point of contention in legal debates, with its meaning often contested. While it clearly prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, the extent to which it tolerates government actions that implicate religion is less clear. For example, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative sessions and the use of public funds for private religious school transportation. However, the Court has also ruled that public benefits cannot be used to fund religious schools when there is a secular alternative.
In conclusion, the Muslim Ban instituted by former President Trump was challenged on the basis that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favouring one religion over another. While the Supreme Court has allowed some government actions that implicate religion, the ban's explicit targeting of Muslim-majority countries was deemed to violate the Establishment Clause and the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty.
Unratified Amendments: The US Constitution's Lost Changes
You may want to see also
The ban violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the US for 90 days, suspending the entry of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibiting any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This order, commonly referred to as the "Muslim Ban", was challenged in court by the ACLU and other organizations on the grounds that it violated the US Constitution and federal law.
One of the arguments made by the ACLU was that the ban violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. While the Fifth Amendment does not contain an Equal Protection Clause like the Fourteenth Amendment, its due process guarantee has been interpreted to impose similar restrictions on the federal government. This interpretation was established in the 1954 case of Bolling v. Sharpe, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment "requires equal protection under the laws of the federal government".
The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, as interpreted through Bolling v. Sharpe and subsequent cases, means that the federal government cannot discriminate against individuals or groups. By targeting individuals from predominantly Muslim countries, the Muslim Ban enacted discriminatory measures that violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment.
The Muslim Ban drew immediate criticism and legal challenges from civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, which filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court arguing that the ban violated the Constitution and federal law. The lawsuit specifically highlighted the ban's violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law, among other constitutional protections.
The legal challenges to the Muslim Ban were successful in blocking its implementation. On February 7, 2017, the ACLU sued Trump on behalf of organizations that resettled refugees, and the appeals court refused to reinstate Trump's ban, upholding the stay. On February 15, 2018, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the ban violated the First Amendment and was "'unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam'".
Voting Rights Act: The 15th Amendment's Impact
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The ban violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and association
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit people from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes, and implicit within this right is the right to association and belief.
The First Amendment's protection of free speech and association was violated by President Trump's ban on travel by people from seven Muslim-majority nations. The ban was implemented through an Executive Order that banned foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the country for 90 days, suspended entry to the US of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibited any other refugees from coming into the country for 120 days. This ban was challenged by the ACLU-WA, who filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion.
The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. The ban interfered with the free speech rights of those affected by preventing them from expressing themselves through association with whomever they choose, and to gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct wrongs in society.
The ban also violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of association, which is implicit in the right to assemble. The ban prevented individuals from associating with one another based on their religion, which is a form of discrimination that is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Constitution's promise of religious liberty extends to followers of all faiths, including Muslims, and the ban was an attempt to put the religious liberty of Muslims up for a vote, which is not permitted. The ban was also found to be "unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam", which further demonstrates that it violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech and association.
Texas Constitution Amendments: What's Required?
You may want to see also
The ban violates the Constitution's promise of religious liberty
The Muslim ban instituted by former President Trump's administration violated the Constitution's promise of religious liberty. The ban, which prohibited foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, was challenged in court by the ACLU and other organizations as a violation of the First Amendment prohibition on the government establishing a religion.
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion, while the Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion. The ban was seen as a form of religious discrimination, targeting individuals based on their faith, and thus violating the Establishment Clause.
The Constitution's promise of religious liberty extends to followers of all faiths, and the court's decision to block the ban affirmed that discrimination against Muslims violates the First Amendment. The ruling sent a message that the religious liberty of Muslims may not be put up for a vote and that such discrimination is unconstitutional.
Additionally, the ban violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. It singled out a specific religious group for unequal treatment, which is contrary to the foundational ideas of religious liberty and equality. The Supreme Court has held that religious tests for office-holding violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and that neither the state nor the federal government can force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
The Muslim ban not only restricted travel but also had a significant impact on the lives of those affected, including refugees and asylees, separating families and trapping individuals inside the country, unable to visit their home countries or carry out education-related travel. The ban was a clear violation of the Constitution's promise of religious liberty and equality before the law.
Texas Constitutional Amendments: What's Up for Vote?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes. The Muslim Ban, also known as Travel Ban 3.0, was signed into law by President Trump in 2017 and prevented foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US. This was found to violate the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion.
The Muslim Ban, or Executive Order 13769, banned foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from visiting the US for 90 days, suspended the entry of all Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibited any other refugees from entering the US for 120 days.
The Muslim Ban was challenged on the basis that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and guarantees religious liberty for all faiths.
Lower federal courts initially blocked the implementation of the Muslim Ban, finding that it likely violated the First Amendment. However, in 2018, the Supreme Court allowed the ban to be implemented while legal challenges continued, and as of 2023, the ban remains in full effect.
