General
USCCB Amici Curiae brief in Donald J. Trump v State of Hawaii (2018)
USCCB Amici Curiae brief in Donald J. Trump v State of Hawaii, March 30, 2018
The Proclamation (“EO-3”), like its predecessors, has both the purpose and the effect of discriminating against Muslims. Prior to issuing the Proclamation, the President repeatedly announced his desire to target Muslims for denial of entry to the United States. And Section 2 of EO-3 does just that, singling out the populations of six overwhelmingly Muslim nations for sweeping immigration restrictions that, for all practical purposes, apply nowhere else in the world.
Such blatant religious discrimination is repugnant to the Catholic faith, core American values, and the United States Constitution. It poses a substantial threat to religious liberty that this Court has never tolerated before and should not tolerate now. Having once borne the brunt of severe discriminatory treatment, particularly in the immigration context, the Catholic Church will not sit silent while others suffer on account of their religion. In the words of Elie Wiesel, “[t]he opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference.” Elie Wiesel, One Must Not Forget, U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 27, 1986.
This Court should strike down Section 2 of the Proclamation as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Proclamation is an implementation of the Administration’s repeatedly expressed antipathy to 7 Muslims and to Islam. Indeed, prior to assuming office, the President called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” J.A. 119 (internal quotation marks omitted). After his inauguration, he and his advisors continued to call for a Muslim travel ban, issued three such executive orders (each promptly blocked by the courts), and repeatedly made anti-Muslim statements, including around and after the time he issued EO-3. IRAP v. Trump, 883 F.3d 233, 265–67 & n.15 (4th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (cataloging statements from 2016 through the issuance of EO-3 and beyond); see also J.A. 15968.
Religious discrimination often can be difficult to identify, shrouded in neutral-sounding principles or benign-seeming justifications.