ACRU: Judge in Hawaii Erred in ‘Travel Ban’ Case
The First Amendment “cannot be claimed by foreigners on foreign soil.”
ALEXANDRIA, VA (April 21, 2017) A U.S. District judge in Hawaii misapplied the First Amendment when issuing a temporary injunction against President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from several terror-prone nations, an American Civil Rights Union brief filed today at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals argues.
The judge wrongly extended constitutional rights to individuals in foreign countries and also declared that the executive order is motivated by an impermissible religious purpose of discriminating against Muslims.
The brief argues, “The district court applied the wrong standard by looking to whether the Executive Order had a secular purpose or whether it endorsed a particular religious message. The Supreme Court in 2014 jettisoned that line of cases and abandoned such lines of inquiry.”
The ACRU’s brief in State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump asks the appeals court to reverse the district judge’s temporary injunction.
The president’s order “is consistent with the historical meaning of the Establishment Clause,” the brief says, and, “Like other constitutional rights, it [the First Amendment’s religious freedom guarantee] cannot be claimed by foreigners on foreign soil.”