老澳门开奖结果

This piece originally appeared at .

According to , 鈥渢he clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.鈥� But that command is apparently not clear enough for President Donald Trump. On Friday he signed an executive order on refugees that imposes a selective ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries as well as establishes preferential treatment for refugees seeking asylum who are identified with 鈥渕inority religions鈥� in their country of origin. In case there was any doubt about the latter provision鈥檚 intent, Trump Christian Broadcast News that it was intended to give priority to 鈥淐hristians鈥� seeking asylum over 鈥淢uslims.鈥�

In both respects, the executive order violates the 鈥渃learest command of the Establishment Clause.鈥� First, as I developed in an , the Constitution bars the government from targeting Islam. One of the lowest of many low moments in Donald Trump鈥檚 presidential campaign was his December 2015 call for a 鈥渢otal and complete shutdown鈥� of Muslim immigration. The proposal treated as presumptively suspect a religion practiced by about 1.6 billion people worldwide, nearly a quarter of the globe鈥檚 population. Trump soon retreated to talk of 鈥渆xtreme vetting,鈥� but he never gave up his focus on the religion of Islam. Friday鈥檚 executive orders are of a piece with his many anti-Muslim campaign promises.

As I wrote earlier, one of the critical questions with respect to the validity of executive action challenged under the Establishment Clause is its intent and effect. If intended to disfavor a particular religion, it violates the Establishment Clause. Here, there is copious 鈥渟moking gun鈥� evidence that the president intended to disfavor Muslims on the basis of their religion. It includes:

• On December 7, 2015, the Trump campaign issued a press release stating that 鈥淒onald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country鈥檚 representatives can figure out what is going on.鈥�
• In July 2016, he effectively admitted that his revamping of the proposal was designed to target Muslims without expressly saying so. In an interview on 鈥淢eet the Press: with NBC鈥檚 Chuck Todd,鈥� Trump said he would target immigrants from certain countries, but he resisted the suggestion that this was a retreat from his proposal to target Muslims. 鈥淚 actually don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a rollback. In fact, you could say it鈥檚 an expansion鈥� People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can鈥檛 use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I鈥檓 OK with that, because I鈥檓 talking territory instead of Muslim.鈥�
• In November 2015, Trump told NBC News he 鈥渨ould certainly implement鈥� a database to track Muslims in the United States. 鈥淚 would certainly implement that," he said. "Absolutely.鈥� Would Muslims be legally required to register? 鈥淭hey have to be 鈥� they have to be,鈥� Trump replied.
• In March 2016, Trump said, 鈥淔rankly, look, we鈥檙e having problems with the Muslims, and we鈥檙e having problems with Muslims coming into the country.鈥�

Nor is this mere campaign rhetoric. In signing the executive order on Friday, Trump to 鈥渒eep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.鈥� Not 鈥渢errorists.鈥� Not 鈥渞adical terrorists.鈥� But only 鈥渞adical Islamic terrorists.鈥� Of course we should be keeping terrorists out, but why limit our concern to those of one faith?

Second, the flipside of the order, equally invalid, is that it is intended, as Trump candidly admitted on Christian Broadcast News, to favor Christians fleeing persecution over others. Here, too, Trump has violated the Establishment Clause鈥檚 鈥渃learest command.鈥� Christians suffering persecution deserve asylum, but so do Muslims suffering persecution and Buddhists and Jews and Sikhs and Zoroastrians. There is no legitimate reason to favor Christians over all others who are persecuted for their beliefs.

The executive order, of course, does not say in express terms that it is favoring Christians and disfavoring Muslims. But Trump is the signatory, and he has said so explicitly. Moreover, even absent that evidence of Trump鈥檚 invidious intent, the order on its face favors refugees from 鈥渕inority religions鈥� over those from 鈥渕ajority religions鈥� in any given country. That distinction independently violates the principle of denominational neutrality, even if in some countries it means we will be privileging Christians and in other countries Muslims.

The law struck down in Larson v. Valente did not name any particular denominations, but it simply imposed differential registration and reporting requirements on religions that received more than half of their total contributions from members and those that did not. Even though the law did not single out a specific religion by name, it failed to treat all denominations the same and therefore violated the Establishment Clause. Thus, even if Donald Trump hadn鈥檛 admitted his unconstitutional purpose on TV, the executive order would be unconstitutional.

The notion that it is improper to use religions litmus tests at the border has wide appeal. When Trump initially proposed his Muslim ban in December 2015, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a resolution expressing 鈥渢he sense of the Senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States based on their religion, as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded.鈥� It passed 96-4. (Jeff Sessions, Trump鈥檚 nominee for Attorney General, was one of the four holdouts.) It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans continue to oppose religious discrimination now that it鈥檚 the official policy and practice of their president, not just the proposal of a maverick candidate.

The 老澳门开奖结果 has already to challenge the executive order, working with the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, the National Immigration Law Center, Yale Law School鈥檚 Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, and the firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton. The suit was filed on behalf of two Iraqi refugees stopped at John F. Kennedy International Airport on the authority of the executive order, and it argues that the order violates due process, equal protection, international law, and immigration law. We are also preparing an Establishment Clause challenge. As we told President Trump two days after he was elected, if he pursues the many unconstitutional measures he proposed during the campaign, 鈥渨e鈥檒l see you in court.鈥�