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.
As we aggressively fight to protect our national security and Christians, we urgently need your support. Have your gift DOUBLED today. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.
In a further development in the ongoing litigation over President Trump’s National Security Executive Order, the United States Supreme Court today halted a Hawaii federal judge’s order allowing refugees to enter this country who lack a close relationship with an America entity. Previously, on June...
Sixteen years after the attacks of 9-11, with threats from multiple jihadist groups, the resurgence of the Russian Federation , a marked military buildup in China, an emboldened Iran, and the nuclear ambitions of North Korea—the arena of national security has never been more important and more...
As an update to what we explained earlier today , the State of Hawaii was rebuffed by a federal trial court yesterday in the State’s efforts to have that court clarify the United States Supreme Court’s modification of the injunctions imposed against the President’s national security Executive...
On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court modified the injunctions imposed by federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland against the President’s national security Executive Order. The Supreme Court’s ruling (which agreed with many of the arguments made in our amicus brief ) was a stern...