Judge’s Ruling that New Executive Order to Keep America Safe Violates the Establishment Clause is “Fundamentally Flawed” | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

Judge’s Ruling is “Fundamentally Flawed”

By Jay Sekulow1489629876519

A federal district judge in Hawaii has just issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the key provisions of the President’s revised Executive order that pauses the refugee program and admittance of foreign nationals from 6 terrorist hotbeds (Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen) until thorough vetting can be put in place.

The court disturbingly ruled that these two provisions – pausing refugees and foreign national entry from 6 nations – target Muslims and violate the Establishment Clause.

The court created a constitutional crisis where none existed. The court’s Establishment Clause analysis is fundamentally flawed and ignores the separation of powers. Worst of all, it puts our national security at risk.

As the Supreme Court has rightly held, the United States Constitution is “not a suicide pact.”

As I explained earlier this week when we filed our amicus brief with the court in this case, the order in no way violates the Establishment Clause:

First, the Executive Order (EO) does not even address religion, whatsoever. Second, the order has a secular purpose: our national security. As we explained:

“The EO, on its face, serves secular purposes, and no amount of rehashing of miscellaneous campaign trail commentary can change that. . . . [T]he mere suggestion of a possible religious or anti-religious motive, mined from past comments of a political candidate or his supporters, and intermixed with various secular purposes, is not enough to doom government action (along with all subsequent attempts to address the same subject matter). ‘[A]ll that Lemon requires’ is that government action have ‘a secular purpose,’ not that its purpose be ‘exclusively secular,’ and a policy is invalid under this test only if it ‘was motivated wholly by religious considerations.’ Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680-81 & n.6 (1984) (emphasis added).”

The order singles out no religion for favor or disfavor. To conclude otherwise is unreasonable, and absurd. The six countries whose nationals are impacted by the pause were countries identified by President Obama and Congress as countries of particular concern. Policy disagreements, hurt feelings, and political agendas are not enough to support an Establishment Clause claim.

The court’s flawed order will invariably be appealed, and we will be ready to file crucial amicus briefs once again in federal appeals court.

The fact remains, the Executive order is a lawful exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory authority to keep America safe from terrorism. We are now working around the clock, preparing new briefs. This case will go to the Supreme Court.

Defend Our National Security from Jihad

National Security  Signatures

LOGIN

Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

$20
$40
$60
$120
$240
Make this a monthly tax-deductible gift.

As we aggressively fight to protect our national security and Christians, we urgently need your support. Defend America & Christians today.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Save this card for future donations.
Enter a password to create an account or login to ACLJ.org‏ (Not Required)

Your data is secure. Learn More »

Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.


Please encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.

Fourth Circuit Incorrectly Upholds Injunction

By Edward White1495807718091

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision upholding an injunction imposed against the President’s Executive Order that is designed to protect our nation from foreign terrorists. Ten judges (all placed on the court by Democratic Presidents) voted in favor...

read more

Did Media Create New Trump/Russia Story?

By Jay Sekulow1494970182209

It’s clear that the liberal media and the political Left will do anything they can to derail President Trump and his administration. The latest example is the laser-like focus on a bogus news story hatched by the Washington Post: That President Trump revealed classified material, including highly...

read more

Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in EO Appeal

By Edward White1494944734484

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, California, is the second federal appellate court within the past two weeks to consider the President’s revised immigration Executive Order, designed to protect our nation from foreign terrorists. As reported last...

read more

Oral Arguments in Executive Order Appeal

By Edward White1494339504472

Yesterday, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—all thirteen active appellate judges—heard oral argument in the appeal of the Maryland federal trial judge’s injunction that halts the enforcement of the President’s revised Executive Order that protects our country from...

read more