Addressing the government’s contention that the text of the executive order was religiously neutral because it applied to people from six countries regardless of their religion:
The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. … It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.
Addressing the government’s suggestion that the court should rely only on the text of the executive order to evaluate its purpose:
Only a few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit commanded otherwise. … The Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not “turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.”
.. Suggesting why the government wanted the court to stay focused on the text of the executive order:
The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.
.. After extensively quoting President Trump:
The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” … The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Muhammad Ali Jr., Detained Last Month at Airport, Stopped Again
One day after Muhammad Ali Jr. spoke with members of Congress about being detained at a Florida airport last month, he was briefly stopped again before boarding a flight on Friday afternoon, his lawyer said.
.. Mr. Ali, 44, was asked his date of birth, where he was born and his Social Security number, Mr. Mancini said. After answering the questions, he was told that his Illinois-issued identification card, which expires in 2019 but is not a driver’s license, was invalid for flying.
Judges v. Trump: Be Careful What You Wish For
Rudolph Giuliani’s acknowledgment that the travel ban was really a Muslim ban; the failure of the lawyers who wrote the ban to consult national-security officials; and Mr. Trump’s statements in interviews.
.. But the blame lies with Mr. Trump. Having used the pretext of national security to indulge his hostility to a vulnerable group and lacking self-discipline and professionalism, he has lost the confidence of the courts, just as he may have lost the confidence of intelligence agents he compared to Nazis.
.. And if a terrorist attack does happen, as the president suggested in a tweet, he might feel empowered to defy the courts.
The Better, Non-Hysterical Case Against Trump’s Immigration Executive Order
This assumes, of course, the goal of the executive order was not to create the impression both at home and abroad that President Trump was actually banning Muslims – “boob bait for Bubbas,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to call it.
I wrote on Twitter yesterday that I would trade the seven-nation visa ban for an extended review of any visitor of any nationality who’s traveled to Syria in past six years. One person on Twitter responded, “The Muslim ban is about decreasing the number of Muslims allowed into the USA. Your proposal would not do this. So, no.” Trump’s executive order isn’t really a Muslim ban, but apparently some of his supporters are happy to pretend to that it is, or they’re hoping that it is a first step towards an actual literal Muslim ban.