Eleanor Finch
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order banning travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries, suspending the resettlement of all Syrian refugees, and prohibiting any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This order, often referred to as a Muslim ban, was challenged in court by civil rights organizations on the grounds that it violated the US Constitution and federal law. The ban was deemed cruel, inhumane, and discriminatory, and sparked protests and legal challenges across the country. Despite initial court injunctions blocking the order, a third version of the executive order was eventually allowed to go into force in 2018, expanding the list of barred travelers. The Trump administration's consideration of sweeping travel restrictions for dozens of countries in 2025 has raised further concerns about discriminatory practices and potential violations of the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Violates the First Amendment | Prohibits government establishment of religion |
| Violates the Fifth Amendment | Guarantees of equal treatment under the law |
| Violates international law | Cruel and inhumane |
| Violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution | Likely discriminatory against Muslims |
| Violates federal statutes | Violates federal law |
| Discriminatory travel ban | Anti-Muslim, anti-refugee |
| Unconstitutional | Violates American values |
| Violates human rights | Intensifies human rights crises |
| Cruel and inhumane | Rips apart families |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order banning travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order also suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees indefinitely and prohibited any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This action sparked protests and legal challenges, with groups opposing the ban arguing that it constituted religious discrimination and violated the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court, representing refugees, asylees, and Washington state residents legally residing in the country but unable to travel for fear of being unable to return. The suit argued that the President's Executive Order on immigration violated the Constitution and federal law. The ACLU-WA's Legal Director, Emily Chiang, stated that the ban "violates American values and has taken a great toll on innocent individuals. It has ripped apart families in Washington state and around the country."
In addition to the legal challenges, there was also significant public backlash to the ban. Protests erupted across the country, and immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations united to oppose the order. Many people viewed the ban as discriminatory and inhumane, particularly given the context of President Trump's previous anti-Muslim statements.
The text of the first Muslim ban was lifted almost verbatim from a 2016 speech by then-candidate Trump, entitled "Understanding the Threat: Radical Islam and the Age of Terror." The administration's subsequent "`worldwide review` of vetting practices in nearly 200 countries was seen as a mechanism to reverse-engineer the original Muslim ban. While the current ban includes some non-predominantly Muslim countries, the impact on those countries is minimal, with the majority of affected individuals being from Muslim-majority nations.
The courts have been divided on the constitutionality of the ban. While some courts have blocked the ban from being implemented, citing potential violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, other courts have allowed it to go into effect. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld a version of the ban in 2018, expanding the list of barred travelers to include nationals from Venezuela and North Korea. However, legal challenges to the ban and its various iterations have continued, with organizations like the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice arguing that it remains unconstitutional and discriminatory.
US Citizenship: Children of Americans, What the Constitution Says
You may want to see also
Violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, banning foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the US for 90 days, suspending the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibiting any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This executive order was labelled the "Muslim ban" by Trump himself, his supporters, and critics.
The Muslim ban was challenged in court by the ACLU-WA, which filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in the Western District of Washington. The suit argued that the executive order violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and that the government must provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. By specifically targeting Muslim-majority countries, the Muslim ban appeared to violate this amendment by discriminating against individuals based on their nationality and religion.
The Muslim ban disproportionately impacted individuals from Muslim-majority countries, preventing them from reuniting with their families, accessing education, and seeking refuge in the US. This ban also caused immense hardship for refugees and asylees residing in Washington, who were unable to reunite with their family members who had completed security screenings. Furthermore, the ban's indefinite suspension of Syrian refugee admissions and the reduction of the maximum number of refugees admitted to the US further exacerbated the issue, causing a humanitarian crisis.
In addition to legal challenges, there was widespread condemnation of the Muslim ban, with critics arguing that it was cruel, inhumane, and violated international law. Protests erupted, and legal interventions were pursued to prevent the enforcement of the order. A nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on February 3, 2017, in the case of Washington v. Trump, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 9, 2017, leading to the Department of Homeland Security halting the enforcement of portions of the order.
The Muslim ban set a dangerous precedent, threatening the freedom and rights of people not just in the US but worldwide. It was an attack on human rights and a discriminatory action that caused immense suffering for those seeking refuge and a better life. The ban's violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law was just one aspect of its unconstitutionality, with other challenges also citing violations of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.
Legislative Branch: Understanding Their Core Responsibilities and Duties
You may want to see also
Cruel and inhumane treatment of refugees
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, banning foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the United States for 90 days, suspending the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and prohibiting any other refugees from entering the country for 120 days. This order was challenged in court by the ACLU and other organizations, who argued that it violated the US Constitution and federal law.
The ban was widely criticized as cruel and inhumane, particularly for those seeking asylum from countries with serious human rights abuses, such as torture and mass murder. Returning to their home countries was not a safe option for many. The ban also caused significant disruption to families, with some individuals trapped inside the US, unable to visit their families in their home countries for fear of being unable to return.
The State Department indicated that when the US refugee resettlement program restarts, the maximum number of refugees the US will receive will be slashed from 110,000 to 50,000. This decision was based on the claim that terrorists are using the resettlement program to enter the country. However, this claim has been widely disputed, with critics pointing to the discriminatory nature of the ban and the fact that very few refugees have been implicated in terrorist activities.
The Trump administration's actions have set a dangerous precedent, with the rollback of human rights in one country posing a risk to human rights everywhere. The ban has been seen as an attack on the values of freedom and equality, with the potential to inspire other leaders to follow suit and implement similar discriminatory policies.
The UK Constitution: Flexibility and Sources
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Violation of international law
Trump's Muslim Ban, officially known as Executive Order 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", was signed on January 27, 2017. The order banned travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—and indefinitely suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees.
The Muslim Ban was a clear violation of international law and treaties ratified by the US. The ban was cruel and inhumane, and it put the US on a dangerous path regarding refugee and human rights law. The US has obligations under international refugee law, which requires countries to take in war refugees on humanitarian grounds. Trump's order violated several international treaties, some of which have been incorporated into US law and cited by the US Supreme Court.
The ban sparked protests across the country, with immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations challenging the order on legal grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliates played a significant role in opposing the ban. They filed lawsuits, submitted Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests, and joined protests against the discriminatory travel ban.
The Muslim Ban was initially blocked by various federal courts, including rulings from Judge Victoria Roberts in Detroit and Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, who issued a temporary restraining order against the ban. However, in 2018, the US Supreme Court allowed a third version of the executive order to take effect, expanding the list of barred travelers to include officials from Venezuela and North Korea. The Supreme Court's decision was met with criticism, with President Trump denouncing the previous ruling as "an unprecedented judicial overreach."
In 2019, the ACLU of Michigan continued to challenge the ban, and Judge Roberts ruled that the case could proceed. Finally, in 2021, after President Biden took office, the Muslim Ban was rescinded, and the case was dismissed.
Judicial Tenure: Understanding the US Constitution's Take
You may want to see also
Violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Trump's Muslim ban, officially known as Executive Order 13769, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", was found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and prohibits government actions that favour one religion over another. In the context of Trump's Muslim ban, the ban was found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause because it was seen as targeting Muslims specifically.
There is a substantial amount of public information, including the President's own anti-Muslim comments, that suggests the ban was motivated by religious discrimination. For example, in an interview on "60 Minutes", Trump acknowledged a ""conceptual link" between a Muslim ban and the executive order. Additionally, the text of the first Muslim ban was lifted almost verbatim from a 2016 speech by then-candidate Trump entitled "Understanding the Threat: Radical Islam and the Age of Terror".
The ban targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and included provisions that suspended the resettlement of Syrian refugees indefinitely and lowered the number of refugees admitted into the United States. These countries were chosen despite meeting the administration's "worldwide review" requirements, while other countries that did not meet the requirements were not included in the ban.
The discriminatory nature of the ban was further evidenced by the inclusion of non-predominantly Muslim countries, which affected very few people, serving as a red herring. The ban also prevented refugees from being resettled and defined "close" family ties narrowly, keeping families apart.
As a result of the ban's discriminatory nature and targeting of a specific religious group, it was found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from favouring or establishing an official religion.
Unlocking DNA's Secret to Gene Expression
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel to the US for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order also suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees indefinitely and prohibited any other refugees from entering the US for 120 days.
The Muslim Ban was seen as a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of equal treatment under the law. The ban was also challenged on the grounds of religious discrimination.
The ban sparked protests across the country, with demonstrations at airports and opposition from immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations. The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court, challenging the ban and arguing that it violated the Constitution and federal law.
Various courts blocked the initial ban and its iterations, with federal judges ruling that it likely violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. The Trump administration appealed these rulings. In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed a third version of the ban to go into effect, expanding the list of barred travelers.
