The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on the U.S. Supreme Court to restore a Hawaii court’s injunction against Muslim Ban 3.0.
This afternoon, the Supreme Court made the decision to review a Hawaii court’s broad injunction against Muslim Ban 3.0, a decision an appellate court — the Ninth Circuit — has already upheld.
SEE: Supreme Court to Consider Challenge to Trump’s Latest Travel Ban
Just last month, the Supreme Court issued two orders staying the Hawaii and Maryland federal courts’ injunctions that had, until December 4, 2017, largely prevented the Trump administration from implementing Muslim Ban 3.0’s visa restrictions.
Although the Supreme Court’s December 4th decision allowed Muslim Ban 3.0 to go into effect now, today’s decision means that the Supreme Court will soon have the opportunity to reinstate the injunctions issued by lower courts in October.
“The illegal bigotry that animates Muslim Ban 3.0 should be as clear to the Supreme Court as it is to the Muslims it stigmatizes,” said CAIR National Litigation Director Lena Masri.
“If the First Amendment means anything at all, it means that the president of the United States cannot wield the federal government’s powers in a way calculated to disfavor Muslims and demonize Islam,” said CAIR Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas. “The Supreme Court — along with the rest of us — must do everything possible to oppose Muslim Ban 3.0.”
In October, CAIR and the Brennan Center for Justice filed suit against President Trump’s Muslim Ban on behalf of six American Muslims impacted by the immigration restrictions. Civil rights attorneys, including CAIR National attorney Gadeir Abbas, delivered oral arguments against the ban in mid-October.
On appeal, this case, Zakzok v. Trump, was consolidated with two others, and all are pending before the Fourth Circuit. Oral argument was held on December 8th, in Richmond, Va.
VIDEO: CAIR, Other Civil Rights Groups Hold Presser After Md. Court Arguments on Trump’s Muslim Ban
The appeal regards a Maryland court’s decision to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing most of Muslim Ban 3.0. In a broad ruling on October 18th, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang granted CAIR and other groups’ request for a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from implementing its latest attempt to exclude Muslims from the United States.
Judge Chuang ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to ultimately succeed in proving that anti-Muslim animus motivated the travel ban in violation of the Establishment Clause. He also noted that the ban violates federal law, which forbids the government from discriminating against visa applicants based on their nationality.
SEE: Second Judge Rules Against Latest Travel Ban, Saying Trump’s Own Words Show It Was Aimed at Muslims
In September, CAIR — with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Profeta & Eisenstein — filed an amicus brief with U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of seven American Muslims.
READ: Amicus Brief
These groups also filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in August.
READ: Amicus Brief
In January, just days after Trump signed the first Muslim ban executive order, CAIR filed suit.
SEE: CAIR Files Federal Suit Challenging Constitutionality of Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Executive Order