Can The Federal Courts Still Tar Trump With The Brush of Bigotry Against Muslims and Hispanics?

The 2024 election results suggest just the opposite.

There was a constant theme in the #Resistance litigation during President Trump's first term in office: he is a bigot, and everything he does is tainted by bigotry. The prime example was the travel ban. Federal judges in Hawaii, Maryland, Brooklyn, and elsewhere gleefully cited President Trump's tweets to show that he had animus against Muslims. As I wrote at the time, they tarred Trump with the brush of bigotry. Similar reasoning was raised in the challenge to the cancellation of DACA. The New York Attorney General argued that the policy could not be wound down due to Trump's animus against Hispanics. The AG cited Trump's interview with Jorge Ramos, lines about "bad hombres," and countless other tweets. At the time, I wrote that even if these "comments should have given pause to his voters, courts cannot properly consider them in evaluating this policy."

Now, as the second term begins, the #Resistance is already starting to whirl again. But will these same animus arguments work? Can California and New York and Maryland once again argue that everything Trump does is tainted by bigotry against Hispanics and Muslim people? Is Trump perpetually tainted? I'm sure they'll try to make that argument. But there is some countervailing evidence. The 2024 election returns!

For starters, Trump won the most votes in Dearborn, Michigan, the city with one of the highest Arab populations in the country!

Unofficial results released by the city of Dearborn show that Mr. Trump won 42 percent of the vote in Dearborn, compared with 36 percent for Ms. Harris and 18 percent for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

In 2020, similar results released after the election showed that Mr. Biden had won almost 70 percent of votes by Dearborn residents. . . .

This week, the sentiments of Arab and Muslim Americans in Dearborn were heard through the ballot. In interviews with The Times on Tuesday outside polling stations, voters backing Mr. Trump said they wanted to give him a chance to rein in wars across the world and bring peace to the Middle East.

Despite everything that we have been told over the past decade, a significant share of Muslim voters chose Donald Trump over Kamala Harris. Certainly they know more about Muslim animus than some cloistered judges on the Acela corridor.

The trends were even greater for Hispanic voters:

President-elect Donald Trump was backed by 46% of Latino voters Tuesday, surpassing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to win the biggest share of the national Latino vote by a Republican presidential contender in modern times, a new exit poll shows.

These mini vignettes concretize how much the #Resistance movement overplayed their hand. Calling Trump a bigot every day for a decade has had no actual impact on voters. None. The Times observed regarding Muslims:

Many voters brushed aside comments Mr. Trump has made that were critical of Muslims, and some of them cited his willingness to visit Dearborn and bring prominent local Muslim leaders onstage at a recent campaign rally as evidence of an olive branch.

And Axios reported about Hispanics:

Latino voters appeared to look beyond the racist rhetoric Trump's used to describe undocumented immigrants in an election in which the economy and inflation were top concerns of many voters.

All of the attacks on Trump were mostly noise. It was Lawfare designed to cripple a presidency. Yet during the first term, courts sopped this slop up.

What happens in Trump's second term? You might say that courts should not take cognizance of electoral returns. I agree, and I'll raise you one more: courts should have never performed a "judicial psychoanalysis of [Trump's] heart of hearts," to quote McCreary County. But psychoanalyze they did. And if judges are going to go off script, they may as well consider improper evidence that supports Trump.

Comments

[Soronel Haetir]

Sorry, this is a "Heads I win, tails you lose" game. Expect the resistance to ratchet even higher, not ease off.

[Roger S]

Yes, Democrats and Leftists will cry racism, sexism, prejudice, fascism, and whatever else they can think of.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. The question is not, "can they", but "will they", and the answer would appear to be, what's stopping them?

[jdgalt1]

At least SCOTUS did part of its job in Trump v. US -- it correctly ruled that courts may not question a president's motives for actions within his powers. So the finding in the "animus against Muslims" case is no longer good law. Never mind that the wokists who ignored Trump's real motives (the fact that the affected countries were specifically those who didn't vet airline passengers before letting them fly here) haven't yet been punished for their outrageous partisan misuse of thei courts. They will be.

[Longtobefree]

Yeah. A ban that does not specify Muslims in any way, and does not include all Muslim countries is absolutely a Muslim ban.
Only the left can make that up and actually believe it.

[SimonP]

The gloating and posturing of MAGA since the election just re-affirms, to my mind, their characterization as “trash.”

As I have said here before – I do not fully understand the decision of a majority of voters to hand the WH back to Trump, even while (in several cases) they have voted for Democrats down ballot or “progressive” ballot initiatives. I view their decision as a reflection of their frustration with the “Biden economy” and lack of enthusiasm for Harris’s “vibe” messaging. I get that, and those feelings are valid. And, for all our sake, I hope that they are right, that re-electing Trump will be coupled with – if not a sense of normalcy in our politics, at least some “normalcy” in the economy and our communities. Tame inflation, increase wages, deal with immigration – sure. Let’s see what happens.

But I don’t get the sense from the Trump orbit, or the Musk threats, or the Tucker fulminating, etc., that these are people who understand the enormous trust and responsibility they’ve been granted. They are still treating this like it’s an opportunity to “own the libz.” Like, now that they have been given this power, they can dramatically reshape the American economy, society, and government as they deem fit.

But that’s not what people voted for. They did not vote for a bunch of corrupt Russian trolls to take the reins of our government and economy and drive it into the ground. That is not the mandate.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you live in a bubble, SimonP? = do not fully understand the decision of a majority of voters to hand the WH back to Trump...

If you don't know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.
-- Ayn Rand

[SimonP]

When I say "I doo not fully understand," it is not because I do not understand voters' frustrations - I do - it is because I do not understand why they think that Trump has the team or the ability to address those frustrations. Nothing he actually promised on the campaign trail will deliver to voters the 2017-2019 economy they wanted.

Do you know what the very first agenda item, for the GOP, is going to be? They're working on a tax cut bill. To extend the 2017 tax cuts expiring soon, but also to cut rates for the rich, for corporations, etc. Whether any of Trump's promises for tips or overtime make it remains to be seen. It's going to be a budget-buster, in any case - yet another instance where Trump takes a healthy economy as an opportunity to increase the national debt.

Is it going to lower housing prices? Are eggs going to be cheaper?

[Mr. Bumble]

Were your taxes cut?

[SimonP]

No. I am paying a lot more now than I was previously. The SALT cap hit me hard.

[Commenter_XY]

How hard? What is hard? = The SALT cap hit me hard

I assume you itemize.

[SimonP]

My financial situation is not as complicated as it ought to be, for someone of my income/wealth level. The only time I ever itemized was when the SALT deduction was bigger than the standard deduction.

Suffice it to say, my SALT has vastly exceeded the standard deduction for as long as Trump's SALT cap has been in effect.

[Mr. Bumble]

Blame your local government for your high property taxes.
Don't like paying your fair share?

[SimonP]

I pay more than my fair share, fuckface. The only thing I object to is paying taxes on taxes.

Not that it matters to shitposters like you, Bumbler, but for what it's worth: a big part of why I don't go in for the whole progressive, "tax the wealth" spiel is because I understand that we cannot really finance our government just by expropriating the unrealized gains of a few billionaires. There just isn't enough billionaire wealth locked up for the math to work. Our federal government is substantially financed by taxing people like me, lower-HNW but W-2 employees, who get hosed from pretty much every direction. I pay just under half of my income to federal, state, and local governments, when everything is said and done.

[Rossami]

That is one messed up interpretation of the SALT Cap. You're not paying "taxes on taxes", you're paying taxes to two different jurisdictions - one federal (which we all pay) and one local - which we also all pay.

The only difference is that you choose to live in a local jurisdiction that charges you a hell of a lot more than other places. That's your choice but that gives you no moral basis to foist part of that burden onto the rest of us.

By the way, since you are presumably getting more in local services for all those local taxes, you are at best paying your own "fair share", not more than it. If you are not getting more in local services than you're paying, that as Mr Bumble said is something you should take up with your local government.

[Joe_dallas]

Simon - The salt cap probably did hit you very hard if at all

The standard deduction nearly doubled from 2017 to 2018, Tax rates dropped and the amt exemption incrased dramtically. Most likely you had a very slight decrease in federal tax. Compare your current tax using the 2017 tax rates and 2017 tax law. Most likely, your tax liability for any post 2017 tax year was 2-3% less. than when computed using 2017 tax rates and 2017 tax law

[David Nieporent]

The first time around, Trump raised my taxes with his SALT cap and his tariffs.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize "45/47" was in charge the last 4 years, you mean those SALT Cap/Tarriffs weren't repealed? So move, I'm sorry, "Vote with your Feet"

Frank

[Kazinski]

Well I thought the rich should pay their fair share?

But of course the reason it hit you so hard is because your state and local taxes are so high, why don't you address the cause rather than the symptom?

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Dr. Frank N Furter

[Bruce Hayden]

Makes sense. SimonP and Nieporent presumably live in high tax, high real estate price, very likely deep Blue, states. The Trump tax cut raised taxes on them, and gave tax cuts to most everyone else with that money. We did well, with lowered corporate and dividend (thanks to the lowered corporate tax rates) rates.

My question for them, is why should the rest of us pay for their choice of supporting overly expensive state and local governments? Because that is what the SALT deduction is - subsidization of expensive state and local governments by those who don’t live in those places.

[SimonP]

You're not subsidizing shit. We're just trying to get some of our federal tax dollars back.

Every dollar of my SALT that I can't deduct represents a dollar of tax money that I pay, but also must pay tax on. The federal government is taxing my taxes. How is that fair?

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you. Foot vote to a lower taxed local, or vote out the bandits that are overtaxing you to give benefits to slackers and illegals.

[SimonP]

Suck a dick, Bumbler. You're the parasite in this situation.

[Frank Drackman]

Pay your fair share, or consider moving to one of the states without an Income Tax.

[Bob from Ohio]

" How is that fair?"

"Fair" has got nothing to do with it.

Social security benefits are taxed, but those elderly paid FICA taxes all their working lives, so they are being taxed on their taxes as well. Taxing people on limited, semi-fixed income seems more "unfair" than capping SALT deductions for high income people.

[Commenter_XY]

It is exactly a subsidy for the blue state wealthy, paid for by the poor. and lower income Americans. I live in the People's Republic of NJ and I own a home, I empathize somewhat.

If you're that wealthy, the loss of SALT deductibility is an inconvenience.

[Riva]

Russian trolls? I guess you're probably going to try some more Russian collusion lies again. Sorry. Not going to work. Try some new lies or how about not lying? Give a try, just for the novelty of it.

[SimonP]

Tucker takes money from the Russians. Musk and Trump have been talking with Putin - about what, who can say. We had real-time reporting about Russian attempts to seed doubts about the election this year. The connections are there, and plain for all to see.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, guess it's safe now, you caught me, my real name is Frank Ivan Denisovich, and this is just another day in my life. What gave me away? the obsession with Chess? recalling my University days at St Petersburg Polytechnic instead of Auburn?

[Kazinski]

Musk talks to leaders around the world, Starlink is a an important strategic resource, especially for Ukraine, and a threat to Russia. Musk has said he won't let it be used to facilitate Ukrainian drone strikes in Russia (and if you want to criticize him for that note that Biden won't let Ukraine use US supplied missiles to hit targets in Russia, so Musk is conforming to US policy).

Its also notable that SpaceX and Russia are the worlds two most capable space powers, so its necessary to communicate about that to make sure their are no misunderstandings.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Russian attempts to seed doubts about the election this year"

They claim that Harris won?

[Riva]

Not sure if you're some activist trying to foment trouble with more of this BS or just deranged. Doesn't matter though. The majority of Americans have had enough of this crap. Now it's time for the adults to take charge. And soon a reckoning and justice. But you keep on with the propaganda crap. It's really quite amusing.

[Lee Moore]

My theory for Dem Senate candidates doing better than Harris is – partly – that Trump was successful in getting low propensity voters to vote, and a small share of these couldn’t be bothered to go down ballot.

Also Kari Lake is a bad candidate. Nothing wrong with the R candidates in Wisconsin and Michigan though.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

My theory is that D's outperform Trump mostly in swing states with Democrat controlled counties that took days to count their ballots. It was especially neat in Arizona where days after the election they happened to find more ballots which just broke heavily for the Democrat.

[David Nieporent]

That's not actually your theory; you're just trolling.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Explain in AZ where:
– Trump won AZ by 6 pts
– Gallego had 127k more votes than there are registered Democrats
– Lake had 200k fewer votes than there are registered Republicans
– Gallego received more votes than Kamala Harris
– Lake received 140k fewer votes than Trump
– Uncounted ballot totals increased days after the deadline

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what you think needs to be explained. Were you under the impression that voters are required to vote for senators and presidents of the same party? If a bunch of Republicans voted Trump-Gallego rather than Trump-Lake, that would lead to the above pattern of votes. Why does that confuse you?

[paraleaglenm]

Similar to the laundering of USAID out of Ukraine, foreign aid stolen from U.S. taxpayers and the Ukrainian People, the Biden's used the Inflation Reduction Act and Green policy legislation to steal trillions from We the People. This is what Prosecutor Shokin was investigating when Biden bribed Poroshenko to fire him.
The Biden Crime Family stole trillions in unaudited spending and debt, driving the U.S. into an inflationary tailspin.

[Lee Moore]

Logically, Captain, that X is willing to vote for Y, is not evidence that Y does not harbour prejudices against X.

[Rossami]

In strict logic, that’s true. It is, however, circumstantial evidence. The chain is that:
– people do not generally support people who despise them
– If X does support Y, that suggests that X does not believe that Y really despises them
– it is paternalistic (and usually unjustified) to believe that a third party can judge whether X despises Y better than X him/herself can make that judgement
– that leads to a rebuttable presumption that Y does not in fact harbor significant prejudices against X
– the rebuttal would require evidence that, for example, X supported Y because Z was even more prejudiced against X

So yeah, not proof in strict aristotelian logic but circumstantial evidence that supports the conclusion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

All of the attacks on Trump were mostly noise. It was Lawfare designed to cripple a presidency.

Trumpites love to gaslight. They can't even own up to things. And, they will keep on doing it if people just eat it up.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't see how courts have been "tarring Trump" with bigotry. Seems to be they've been pretending it doesn't exist and allowing it to happen. Trump v. Hawaii, 2018 (ignoring Trump's bigoted public justifications and focusing only on the spare language of the travel ban).

[Martinned2]

Expect to see more of that. GOP-dominated (and to some extent Trumpist-dominated) courts bending over backwards to pretend that Trump policies aren't motivated by racism, authoritarianism, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you do Tarot cards and palm reading too?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Don't you understand, Mr. Bumble, according to them, everything the Right does is motivated by "improper animus", and thus defacto unconstitutional.

Everything. Meanwhile, everything they do is defacto constitutional because their hearts of gold and the General Welfare clause grants them unlimited power so long as their hearts remain pure. Which is, of course, a tautology because only those pure of heart become Leftists.

[Martinned2]

What makes you doubt my prediction? It’s exactly what we saw during Trump’s first term, and it’s what we saw/are seeing in lots of other countries that are taken over by right-wing populists too. (E.g. the UK, Italy, Poland.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump v. Hawaii in effect overruled McCreary v. Tennessee, 2005, where the Court based its ruling (that posting the Ten Commandments on a county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause) on the county executive’s announced rationale that “the Decalogue is the basis of the civil code”.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for the correction

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think you’re misreading that case (even ignoring the obvious differences between evaluating whether the government is establishing a religion versus who can and can’t be admitted to the country). McCreary County expressly said that its “purpose” inquiry had to be conducted based on “readily discoverable fact” from the perspective of “an ‘“objective observer,”’ one who takes account of the traditional external signs that show up in the ‘“text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute,”’ or comparable official act.” And it must be done “without any judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”

[Dan Schiavetta]

No "psychoanalysis" was required. All you had to do was look at Trump's on-the-record public statements.

[Commenter_XY]

Weren't you busy last Thursday night with some of your fellow Amsterdam compatriots?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it's pretty obvious that Prof. Blackman is talking about the 8 other federal judges who opined on the case, not the 5 in the Supreme Court majority.

[tuphat]

The last eight years show there's no tar sticky enough to have any effect on this guy.

[Mr. Bumble]

As friction-less as wet ice on wet ice and just as cool.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not among his supporters at least. To have such a large part of the electorate in thrall to someone who can "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue" and not lose support . . . is scary.

[Frank Drackman]

Dick Chaney shot someone in real life (in the Heart! and took another VP's advice and "Used a Shotgun") and didn't go to jail, wasn't even charged. If any Chaney deserved to go before a Firing Squad, it's him. (after a fair and impartial Courts Martial of course)

Frank

[John F. Carr]

"18 percent for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein"

It's not that Trump likes Muslims or Muslims like Trump. With little difference between Harris and Trump on policy related to Israel and Gaza, an unusually large number of voters looked outside the mainstream.

[Life of Brian]

Facts on the ground may have been slightly different: e.g., “Muslim Michigan mayor says Trump endorsement followed ‘neglect’ from Harris”; “Arab Americans ahead of US elections: ‘Trump can end bloodshed’”; etc.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

My favorite was that judge in NYC who claimed that illegals had a constitutional right to say goodbye before being deported and to fulfill that right, he had to be let go and was to return on his own.

[paraleaglenm]

Muslims, Chinese, Mormons--All were subjected to Exclusionary Acts. Those statutes barred immigration and nationalization to the Chinese (until 1898). The Mormons were forced to eliminate Polygamy before Utah was made a state. The Chinese were also so foreign a culture and language, they were deemed incompatible. In addition, their culture also included multiple wives.
Laws against polygamy and immigration of polygamous persons, peoples, and cultures are still codified in U.S. federal law.
Muslims? They are barred from immigration under the polygamy ban, and 8 USC 1424 which bars immigration and visa allocation to persons and peoples whose religion or political philosophy is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitutional Republic.
Muslims have 'invaded' the United States establishing enclaves, judges allowing them under the misapplication of the First Amendment. Muslims are also polygamous, practicing it in the U.S. by hiding their multiple marriages under Sharia law. Of the 57 Islamic States, polygamy is an integral element of all their constitutions. The Koran and Muslim principles declare all other religions forfeit and their secular governments invalid.
Therefore, the banning of Muslims is already baked into U.S. law, just not enforced.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Are you just too stupid to tie a hangman's knot, or is there some other defect of yours that graces us with your lies and retardation?

[Bruce Hayden]

Well, that’s the deal - the US is a monogamous country. You come here, and you can only have one wife. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. Until the Supreme Court decides that there are penumbras and emanations of the Constitution vaguely suggesting something different.

[paraleaglenm]

Correction: Sentence #2, 'nationalization' was supposed to be 'naturalization.'
If you read 8 USC 1424, it is generally applicable to Marxism, but can include Islam. Marxists and communists were to be denied visas to enter the U.S.

[Noscitur a sociis]

8 USC 1424 which bars immigration and visa allocation to persons and peoples whose religion or political philosophy is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitutional Republic.

There are some significant problems with this reading of the statute, with the fact that § 1424 applies to naturalization, not admission to the country, only being the most obvious.

[paraleaglenm]

I am recalling from memory, but the exact language was 'allocation of visas.' So, it applies to visiting, education, and immigration.

[tuphat]

Your memory is not reliable. Please consider taking some of that jellyfish stuff.

8 U.S. Code § 1424 – Prohibition upon the naturalization of persons opposed to government or law, or who favor totalitarian forms of government

[Noscitur a sociis]

Section 1424 does not contain the word “allocation”, nor the word “visas”.

You can read it here, if you don’t want to rely on your memory:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1424

[Noscitur a sociis]

Certainly they know more about Muslim animus than some cloistered judges on the Acela corridor.

The Acela has service to Honolulu now?

You might say that courts should not take cognizance of electoral returns. I agree

Then what was the point of any of this?

[Frank Drackman]

So who's the Iranian Assassination Squad made up of? Mormons? The 9-11 leader was Moehammad Atta, not Moe Rosenberg, it wasn't an Amish Psychiatrist who murdered all those Soldiers at Fort Hood (I know it's "Fort Cervezas" now, I still call it "Fort Hood"), it wasn't Buddhists murdering Israelis on October 7.

[paraleaglenm]

Mormons settled the Deseret Territory and applied for statehood. They were denied because of polygamy being a religious tenet, same as Islam. Mormon's repealed the official religious practice of polygamy (and still do except for some fringe outcasts) in order to become Utah, a state of the union.
As for Islam, I think it odd to admit a religious people whose basic tenets, as detailed in their holy books and history of massacres, are to kill Jews and other non-Muslims. 'Sure, y'all come on in. Make yourself to home!'
At this time, Muslims are upping the ante to citizenship in Bangladesh, ordering Hindi to pay the jizya tax.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

According to the police records, 3 were arrested for the "Iranian-linked" assassination attempt on Trump. One was Iranian linked, the other two were Jews. Weird.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, you're not even a good liar. Two Jews were additional targets; they weren't the other people arrested.

[ReaderY]

Under Trump v. Hawaii, the President can exclude citizens of particular countries from this country for any reason or no reason, unreviewable by the courts.

So these considerations have nothing to do with how courts will rule; courts must construe according to the law. And as to the world will construe, the world will continue to construe according to its wits.

It might have been better to just do an open position post and say you think that because Trump improved his standing with Muslims and Hispanics, that means he was never anti-Muslim or anti-Hispanic. You’d at least be clear about what you’re attempting to argue.But you didn’t. You framed your post in a rhetorical posture starting by assuming the truth of your position and then using it to that those believing otherwise must somehow be hypocrites.

I don’t see how that can be. Since you chose to build your argument on a foundation of sand – you chose to simply assert your position rather than provide any support for it – your conclusion doesn’t follow.

Frankly, it’s not just that your argument is logical nonsense. Your conclusion isn’t true independently of the poorness of your argument . Particular Trump policies could still be anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim even if he increased his support in these communities somewhat since 2020. It happens at lower levels of government all the time. Plenty of cities with mayors and other governmental units with leaders a majority of the black electorate voted for have been sued for civil rights violations over various actions and policies. And these cities have often lost. The fact that the majority of a particular subgroup voted for a person simply diesn’t establish that that person’s policies didn’t or can’t violate the rights of members of that subgroup. While imigration is a special case because of the limited authority of the courts, on matters where courts do have greater authority, the argument just doesn’t hold.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Plenty of cities with mayors and other governmental units with leaders a majority of the black electorate voted for have been sued for civil rights violations over various actions and policies. And these cities have often lost."

Why do black people keep voting for these Republican mayors?

[Michael Ejercito]

A most intriguing question.