The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My House Judiciary Subcommittee Testimony Against the "Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act"
I will be testifying against this proposed legislation - which would authorize exclusion or deportation of all or most non-citizen Muslim immigrants.
Tomorrow, I will be testifying against the proposed "Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act" at a hearing before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. My written testimony, already submitted to the Subcommittee is available here. Here is an excerpt from the Introduction, summarizing my testimony:
I am grateful for the opportunity to address some of the important issues raised by the proposed "Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act." My conclusions about this bill are clear and unequivocal: It is manifestly unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment. In addition, the vast majority of immigrant adherents of Sharia law – a category that includes all or most Muslims – pose no threat and there is no good reason to bar them from the United States.
The proposed legislation states that "Any alien in the United States found to be an adherent of Sharia law by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, or Attorney General shall have any immigration benefit, immigration relief, or visa revoked, be considered inadmissible or deportable, and shall be removed from the United States." This provision amounts to blatant discrimination on the basis of religious belief. As such, it violates both the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
In addition, expelling virtually all Muslim immigrants would needlessly harm many thousands of people and is not necessary to combat terrorism or any other threat to the United States. Far from seeking to undermine America's liberal democratic values, most Muslim immigrants – like those of other faiths – have come precisely because of those values. If enacted, the legislation would harm national security by playing into the hands of radical Islamists and terrorists.
The rest of the testimony covers the constitutional and policy issues in more detail, including explaining why there is no immigration exception to the First Amendment which allows exclusion and deportation of immigrants on the basis of their speech and religious beliefs. It also explains why discrimination on on the basis of religion is unconstitutional even with respect to rights and government benefits that are not themselves constitutional rights. These points are supported by Supreme Court precedents backed by conservative justices.
