Conservative legal commentator and experienced religious liberties litigator David French explains why.
Here's what public health experts are saying.
Other possible legal challenges to Trump's expanded travel ban may be precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. This one is not.
The courts may not strike it down. But it remains both illegal and deeply unjust.
Plus: Kobe Bryant, school choice week, John Bolton's book, a FOSTA ruling, and more...
The Montana Blaine Amendment Case and the Need for a Consistent Approach to Discrimination on the Basis of Religion
Conservatives want courts to consider the governments' bigoted motives in enacting anti-Catholic Blaine amendments, but not when it comes to Trump's travel ban. Liberals tend to be inconsistent in the opposite way.
Assessment of motives is often an essential tool for protecting our constitutional rights.
The concerns I expressed about her record on property rights when I testified at her 2009 confirmation hearing were justified. But she has compiled an admirable record on several other issues.
The way the travel ban policy has been implemented both before and after the Supreme Court's decision further underscores the magnitude of the Justices' mistake.
It should lift the travel ban and bring them with it
"It's separating family-literally separating family from each other."
"Actively counter islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Iran', etc."
Both right and left decry implicit government discrimination on the basis of religion when it targets groups they sympathize with. But both are all too ready to turn a blind eye in other cases.
Some preliminary comments on a badly flawed ruling.
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on state officials' apparent hostility to the bakers' religious beliefs. There is far stronger evidence of such hostility in the travel ban case.
Despite the administration's claims to the contrary, it appears that no such thing exists. Its absence strengthens the constitutional case against the travel ban.
Giving the government blanket power to check the Bill of Rights at the border won't serve the interests of citizens or immigrants
Prof. Michael Mannheimer and I have coauthored an op ed explaining why the Bill of Rights limits federal power over immigration, and renders Trump's travel ban unconstitutional.
On the eve of the of Supreme Court oral argument in the travel ban case, here are links to some of my more notable VC posts on the subject.
If the Supreme Court rules that Trump's campaign statements cannot be used to prove that his travel ban order was an attempt to discriminate against Muslims, it could create a dangerous precedent.
A new Cato Institute study finds that screening of visitors, immigrants, and refugees is about as thorough as can reasonably be expected.
Constitutional Law Scholars' Amicus Brief in the Travel Ban 3.0 Case Explains Why the Bill of Rights Restricts Federal Power over Immigration
The brief, which I coauthored on behalf of myself and six other legal scholars explains why the Bill of Rights constrains federal power over immigration no less than other types of federal power.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the ban violates the First Amendment because it is intended to discriminate against Muslims.
The Court's decision to take the case is not surprising. It could potentially result in a very important decision addressing the scope of presidential power over immigration.
The court concluded that the travel ban exceeds the scope of presidential authority and violates immigration laws enacted by Congress.