‘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.”
[…]
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.’
The Muslim Ban ‘Drips With Religious Intolerance, Animus, and Discrimination,’ Rules Federal Appeals Court
Trump’s Muslim ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:
“EO-2 cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it. In light of this, we find that the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2’s primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. We therefore find that EO-2 likely fails Lemon’s purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause.22 Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.”
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf
The purpose of the Constitution and its case law is to protect persons from the unwarranted fear, bigotry, and hate that often manifests in government, in this case the unwarranted fear, bigotry, and hate exhibited by Trump and most of his supporters with regard to Muslims.
Being Muslim does not ‘predispose’ one to ‘terrorism,’ Islam is not a ‘terrorist religion,’ and Trump’s effort to ban Muslims from entering the county is devoid of merit, a ridiculous fallacy, and the consequence of Trump’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
[…]
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.’
The Muslim Ban ‘Drips With Religious Intolerance, Animus, and Discrimination,’ Rules Federal Appeals Court
Trump’s Muslim ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:
“EO-2 cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it. In light of this, we find that the reasonable observer would likely conclude that EO-2’s primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. We therefore find that EO-2 likely fails Lemon’s purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause.22 Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.”
http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf
The purpose of the Constitution and its case law is to protect persons from the unwarranted fear, bigotry, and hate that often manifests in government, in this case the unwarranted fear, bigotry, and hate exhibited by Trump and most of his supporters with regard to Muslims.
Being Muslim does not ‘predispose’ one to ‘terrorism,’ Islam is not a ‘terrorist religion,’ and Trump’s effort to ban Muslims from entering the county is devoid of merit, a ridiculous fallacy, and the consequence of Trump’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.