On Monday, Donald Trump issued a new executive order suspending America’s refugee program and temporarily halting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries. This new travel ban has formally supplanted the notorious order that Trump issued in January, which had been blocked by multiple courts. One key charge against the previous order was that it violated the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit government discrimination on the basis of religion. As a federal judge in Virginia noted, the order appeared to constitute the “Muslim ban” that Trump bragged about implementing on the campaign trail. Moreover, the order itself contained troubling language that seemed to favor Christian refugees over Muslim ones and that questioned Muslims’ ability to participate in democracy.
Trump’s new order attempts to remedy these constitutional infirmities by striking that dubious language and declaring that the order “was not motivated by animus toward any religion.” But given how receptive courts were to religious discrimination charges against the previous challenge, advocacy groups are likely to return to court to argue that the latest ban still reflects unlawful anti-Muslim animus.
In addition to pointing out campaign comments about a “Muslim ban,” as well as the ban’s focus on Muslim-majority countries, these plaintiffs will surely cite a fundraising email Trump sent out shortly after signing the order, which claims it will fight “radical Islamic terrorism”:
Expect to see that email show up in court in the near future.
