The Fourth Circuit & Animus Under Mandel
By Corey Brettschneider: As the Fourth Circuit recognized today, even if Kleindanst v. Mandel supplies the rule of decision and requires rationality review, animus is fatal to the Muslim Ban even under that standard.
The Comey Affair And Evidence Of Motive
The Comey affair underscores that decisionmakers must look beyond the administration’s “official” documents to determine the administration’s motives.
Why Firing Comey Guts DOJ's Main Defense of the Muslim Ban
Sometimes, when an emissary of the President asks courts to “trust us,” things the President does elsewhere can fatally undermine judicial confidence in the President’s respect for rule of law values. We’ve seen it before and we’re about to see it again.
Judge Keenan Identifies The Most Straightforward Reason Why The Entry Ban Is Unlawful
In the Fourth Circuit argument in IRAP v. Trump, Judge Keenan put her finger on a simple, basic reason why Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13769 is unlawful—and it doesn’t have much to do with the Establishment Clause. Rather, it’s a matter of everyday statutory interpretation, and the fact that President Trump has failed to establish the necessary precondition for the exercise of his statutory authority.
Animus, Past and Present
In a new op-ed, Erwin Chemerinsky and I argue that the entry ban is unconstitutional because it was driven by animus toward Muslims.
Versus Trump: Muslim Ban Argument Recap
It's our first emergency podcast! Right after the full Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in a major case regarding the Muslim Travel Ban, we hopped on the line to do a recap. The podcast includes excerpts from the oral argument audio.
Animus and the Travel Ban
One of the founding principles of this nation is that our government welcomes those of all faiths and rejects religious intolerance. President Trump’s order contravenes our nation’s fundamental commitment to religious freedom and to the equal protection of the laws. Federal courts should declare it unconstitutional.
Judicial Deference to President Trump
It is time to ask: Has Trump in effect forfeited some measure of judicial deference across contexts and cases, through his disrespect for the courts and the rule of law and his displays of prejudice and arbitrary decisionmaking? And if he has not yet reached that point, what more would it take?
The Problem with Palmer
In its Muslim Ban brief, DOJ favorably cites Palmer v. Thompson (1971)—which allowed Jackson, Mississippi to close public pools rather than integrate them. The Fourth Circuit should question DOJ about this stunning citation and make clear that Palmer, an odious ruling, has no place in anti-discrimination law today.
A Compilation of Travel Ban Legal Analyses From Around the Web
Take Care hereby presents in a single post all commentary we have rounded up in our daily updates since the site launched on March 16. Together, these articles tell the story of the revised travel ban and offer a diverse set of perspectives on legal issues in the litigation.
Travel Ban Misconceptions II: Animus & Non-Citizen/Foreign Muslims
The Muslim Ban targets Muslims everywhere. The notion that it reflects, at most, animus toward foreign (or non-citizen) Muslims doesn't withstand scrutiny. There can be no doubt that it inflicts severe and continuing injury on the American Muslim Community.
Misconceptions Part I: Trump, Muslims, and the Travel Ban
Misperceptions of the Muslim Ban case abound. One of them is that Trump's animus is evidenced only by his campaign promise to ban Muslims from America. That promise, we demonstrate, must be situated in the context of Trump's sustained and wide-ranging crusade against the American Muslim community.