Muslim Advocacy Group Challenges Constitutionality Of Trump Immigration Order

The Council of American-Islamic Relations filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order that temporarily bans nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in a Virginia federal court by the country's largest Muslim advocacy group, seeks an injunction against the order. It was filed on behalf of more than 20 plaintiffs, both Americans and non-U.S. citizens.

The lawsuit refers to Trump's executive order, officially titled, “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” as the "Muslim Exclusion Order," contending that the order's "vulgar animosity" is plain to see even though it does not mention the words Muslim or Islam. According to the lawsuit, the order is a fulfillment of Trump's "longstanding promise and boasted intent to enact a federal policy that discriminates against Muslims."

Trump signed the executive order on Friday, calling for the ban of nationals from Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Sudan from entering the country for immigrant and non-immigrant purposes for 90 days. It also bars refugees from entering the country for four months and indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

Just a day after the order was signed, nationals of those seven countries were detained at major U.S. airports, creating chaos as authorities scrambled to implement the order. After a lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Iraqi men being held at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, a federal judge granted an emergency stay that prevented anyone being detained under the order from being deported.

CAIR's lawsuit, which names Trump, the Department of State, the Director of National Intelligence and Department of Homeland Security John Kelly as defendants, acknowledges that Trump's order is narrower and broader than the "total shutdown of Muslims" Trump proposed in December 2015. It contends that it is narrower because it only applies to seven countries but broader as it may interfere with immigration benefits given to those who lawfully entered the United States either on student or employment visas, as refugees or as lawful permanent residents.

Some of those people who might not be able to get their immigration benefits are listed at John Doe and Jane Doe plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One of them is a student on an F-1 visa of Somali origin who cannot travel outside the United States, another is a Syrian refugee who will be eligible for permanent residency in four months.

"This is not a Muslim ban simply," Lena Masri, CAIR's national litigation director, said at a press conference announcing the lawsuit. "It is a Muslim exclusion order."

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr Creative Commons