Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 32 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 12/5/17

American Muslims dismayed at Supreme Court decision to implement Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   2 comments
Message Abdus-Sattar Ghazali
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)

The seven-million strong American Muslim community was dismayed Tuesday (Dec 5) over the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow President Trump's "Muslim Ban 3.0" to be implemented until the court makes a final decision about the executive action's constitutionality.

Earlier Monday, the Supreme Court issued two orders staying the Hawaii and Maryland federal courts' injunctions that had, until Monday, largely prevented the Trump administration from implementing Muslim Ban 3.0's visa restrictions.

"This decision ignores the very real human consequences to American citizens and their families abroad imposed by President Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0," said Lena Masri, National Litigation Director of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

"The Supreme Court's actions today are a good reminder that we can't simply rely on the courts to address the Trump administration's efforts to marginalize Muslims and other minorities," said CAIR Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas. "We must all do everything we can to oppose Muslim Ban 3.0."

It may be recalled that the CAIR and the Brennan Center for Justice filed suit against President Trump's Muslim Ban 3.0 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.

In a broad ruling on October 18th, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang (Hawaii) 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.

Sirine Shebaya, senior staff attorney for Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy organization, said the Supreme Court decision and the administration's efforts are deeply injurious to Americans since families have been divided, businesses have suffered, and the American Muslim community has been marginalized and stigmatized. "We will continue to fight against the ban with even greater resolve knowing that the consequences are so imminent for millions of families."

The apex court's Monday orders mean that the administration can fully enforce its new restrictions on travel from eight nations, six of them Muslim. For now, most citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, and North Korea will be barred from entering the United States, along with some groups of people from Venezuela.

It was a victory for the White House, which has seen the courts trim back various iterations of the travel ban, and it bodes well for the administration if the Supreme Court is called upon to finally decide the merits of the president's actions, the Washington Post said adding:

"Two lower courts had imposed restrictions on Trump's new order, exempting travelers from the six countries who had "bona fide" connections with relatives -- such as grandparents, aunts or uncles -- or institutions in the United States. Those exemptions to the president's order, issued in the fall, were along the lines of those imposed by the Supreme Court last summer on a previous version of the travel ban.

"But in an unsigned opinion Monday that did not disclose the court's reasoning, the justices lifted the injunctions, which had been issued by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland."

The court's move is "a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a written statement. "We are pleased to have defended this order and heartened that a clear majority Supreme Court has allowed the President's lawful proclamation protecting our country's national security to go into full effect. The Constitution gives the President the responsibility and power to protect this country from all threats foreign and domestic, and this order remains vital to accomplishing those goals."

The orders from the two district judges will be reviewed this week. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is set to consider the Hawaii case Wednesday, and the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond will consider the Maryland judge's decision Friday.

The supreme court's brief, unsigned orders Monday urged appeals courts to move swiftly to determine whether the latest ban was lawful, according to New York Times. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the administration's request to allow the latest ban to go into effect.

''President Trump's anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret,'' Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, told the Associated Press. "He has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter.''

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Valuable 2   Must Read 1   News 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Abdus-Sattar Ghazali Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Author and journalist. Author of Islamic Pakistan: Illusions & Reality; Islam in the Post-Cold War Era; Islam & Modernism; Islam & Muslims in the Post-9/11 America. Currently working as free lance journalist. Executive Editor of American (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Pakistan's first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated by America

U.S. Muslims condemn killings of American diplomats in Libya

Are we living in Orwell's 1984 Oceania surveillance state?

Saudi Air Force trainee opens fire at Naval Air Station in Florida killing 3 people

2001-2011: A decade of civil liberties' erosion in America -- Part One

2001-2011: A decade of civil liberties' erosion in America -- Part Two

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend