President Trump’s third illegal attempt to denigrate and discriminate against Muslims through an immigration ban has failed in court yet again. It’s no surprise. The Constitution prohibits government actions hostile to a religion.Like the previous versions, this latest ban seeks to block immigrants and temporary visitors from six Muslim-majority countries — in this iteration, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. It also includes North Koreans and certain Venezuelan government officials. In October, a Maryland federal district court ruled against the ban taking full effect, prompting the government’s appeal.
In the extraordinary case before us, resolution of that question presents little difficulty. . . . Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation’s [the third executive order] purpose is driven by anti- Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President. This evidence includes President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this “Muslim” ban by targeting “territories” instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1 and EO-2 addressed only to majority Muslim nations; and finally the issuance of the Proclamation, which not only closely tracks EO-1 and EO-2, but which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same goal as EO-1 and EO-2.