The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered last night that a Washington state federal judge’s order restraining Trump from enforcing his Muslim ban — the one that effectively bans Muslims from 7 countries from entering the United States, even if they are green card holders or have refugee status — shall not be lifted.
From the 29-page, well-reasoned opinion:
The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a “Muslim ban” as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. …
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim…
Since posting my first story about this, I’ve had many comment on the blog that my constitutional analysis (tl;dr: it’s unconstitutional) is wrong and that it’s not a Muslim ban because Trump didn’t ban all Muslims (yet). I have two questions for you:
- How many judges must rule that Trump’s ban is unconstitutional before you will stop blaming “activist judges” for getting the law wrong? The ruling yesterday was a unanimous 3-judge panel, which brings the total up to at least 6 federal judges now ruling against the ban.
- How many Muslims must Trump ban before you admit it’s a blatant attempt to discriminate based on religion? (If he adds Indonesia to the list, will that be good enough?)