A coalition of attorneys general from 16 states and the District of Columbia is opposing the third version of President Trump’s travel ban before the Supreme Court considers a challenge to the executive order, the provisions of which are “tainted by anti-Muslim animus,” they say.
The attorneys general filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court ahead of the April 25 oral arguments in the travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii. In their brief, they argue the travel ban targets Muslims and paves “the way for a religious test for entry into the country.”
“Amici states are not simply suffering the ‘indirect effects’ of alleged discrimination against foreign nationals with no constitutional rights of their own,” the attorneys general said in their brief. “Rather, by unlawfully injecting religious bias into our nation’s immigration policy, the proclamation impairs the constitutionally protected interest that amici states and Hawaii possess in prohibiting religious discrimination and maintaining welcoming communities where people of all faiths or no faith feel welcome.”
They argue the travel ban contributes “to an environment of fear and insecurity among our residents that runs counter” to the states’ “deeply held commitment to inclusiveness and equal treatment.”
The third iteration of Trump’s travel executive order places restrictions on foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. from eight countries, including six Muslim-majority countries.
Trump said in September the ban was needed to protect the security and interests of the country.
Two previous travel bans rolled out by the Trump administration were blocked by federal courts, but the Supreme Court allowed the third version to take effect in December.
The attorneys general opposing the ban argue it would harm public universities and cause economic and reputational damage to the states.
“All of amici states benefit from immigration, tourism, and international travel by students, academics, skilled professionals, and business people,” the attorneys general wrote. “The disputed provisions of the proclamation — like the previous bans — significantly disrupt the ability of our public universities to recruit and retain students and faculty, impairing academic staffing and research, and causing the loss of tuition and tax revenues, among other costs.
“The proclamation also disrupts the provision of medical care at our hospitals and harms our science, technology, finance, and tourism industries by inhibiting the free exchange of information, ideas and talent between the designated countries and our states, causing long-term economic and reputational damage.”
Attorneys general for California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia signed the brief.
