// 5/14/17 //
On May 8, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral argument on President Trump's revised travel ban.
- Here is an organized guide to all travel ban commentary on Take Care.
- Here is all prior "Daily Update" content about the travel ban.
- Leah Litman and Erwin Chemerinsky argue that the entry ban is unconstitutional because it is driven by animus at Take Care.
- Micah Schwartzman and Nelson Tebbe agree that the revised entry ban is the product of religious animus and violates the Establishment Clause, also at Take Care.
- The executive order is unlawful because President Trump failed to establish the necessary precondition for the exercise of his statutory authority, argues Marty Lederman at Take Care.
- President Trump’s campaign rhetoric was the primary focus of oral arguments on the revised entry ban (WaPo, NYT, Politico).
- Versus Trump, Bloomberg Law, and Rewire summarize the argument.
- Josh Blackman (Josh Blackman’s Blog) and Jane Chong (Lawfare) each provided real-time analysis of the arguments.
- John-Paul Schnapper-Casteras criticizes DOJ's reliance on Palmer v. Thompson (1971), which upheld a decision by Jackson, Mississippi to close all public pools rather than integrate following Brown (Take Care).
- Peter Margulies observed that the judges of the Fourth Circuit appeared skeptical of the Muslim Ban (Lawfare).
- Josh Blackman argues that President Trump’s statements in interviews and during the presidential campaign should not be dispositive (Daily News), and recounts the Government’s primary arguments (Lawfare).
- Writing before the arguments, Cody Wofsy contended that "the world will be watching" (ACLU).
- The travel ban is, in fact, a Muslim ban, argues Robin Schulman (ACLU).
- Here's a profile of Becca Heller, a leader of the legal campaign against the revised travel ban (NYT).
- We are now facing troubling parallels to the Chinese Exclusion Act (NPR).
A Muslim Advocacy group filed a FOIA request seeking material "relating to the government’s border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by [Trump’s] January 27, 2017 Executive Order" (Religion Clause).