Fourth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in National Security Proclamation Case | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion


Fourth Circuit Hears National Security Case

By Edward White1513000800000

This past Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (thirteen active judges) heard oral argument in the case where a Maryland federal court enjoined the full implementation of President Trump’s National Security Proclamation.

The Proclamation places travel restrictions on foreign nationals from Chad, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, North Korea, Venezuela, and Yemen. Those countries failed a global review the Administration conducted to determine which countries satisfy our screening standards for nationals seeking entry into the United States. We also have continuing concerns with terrorism in many of those countries.

The same Maryland court that enjoined the Proclamation previously enjoined the President’s National Security Executive Order. That Executive Order temporarily paused entry into the United States of nationals from six unstable and/or terrorism-infested countries while our government conducted the above-mentioned global review. The Maryland judge determined that the Executive Order violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, among other reasons, owing to campaign comments made by then-candidate Trump and his advisors, which the judge wrongly concluded evidenced a “Muslim ban.” The judge reached the same conclusion with regard to the Proclamation.

Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the injunction imposed by the Maryland court against the Executive Order. The Supreme Court eventually dismissed that case as moot after the terms of the Executive Order had expired.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief urging the Fourth Circuit to vacate the Maryland judge’s injunction against the Proclamation. The brief was filed with the support of the ACLJ’s Committee to Defend Our National Security from Terror, which represents more than 279,000 Americans who have stood in support of the President’s efforts to protect this nation from the entry of foreign terrorists.

As we explain in our brief, the Constitution and federal statutes provide the President with broad power to exclude aliens from this country on the basis of facially legitimate reasons. When the Supreme Court has considered constitutional challenges to immigration-related actions in the past, it has declined to subject those actions to the same level of scrutiny applied to non-immigration-related actions given the sensitive and discretionary nature of the subject. That same deference should be given to President Trump here, as the Proclamation deals with national security and protecting our country from foreign terrorists.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously explained that a government act is consistent with the Establishment Clause if it has a secular purpose and was not motivated wholly by religious or anti-religious considerations. The Proclamation clearly serves a genuine secular purpose—protecting our national security—and is not motivated by anti-religious considerations.

Our brief explains that the Fourth Circuit should not disregard the Proclamation’s obvious secular purpose or focus on miscellaneous comments made by then-candidate Trump, or by his advisors (which have been taken out of context), as the Maryland court incorrectly did. The mere suggestion of a possible religious or anti-religious motive, mined from past comments, is not enough to doom government action. As we state in our brief, “the Proclamation does not violate the Establishment Clause. It should be enforced in full to protect our nation from foreign terrorists.”

Early last week, the Supreme Court stayed the Maryland injunction, as it did a similar injunction imposed by a Hawaii federal court, and has allowed the Proclamation to go into full effect as the appeals in those two cases proceed.

During the oral argument, Fourth Circuit judges inquired about the breadth of the President’s authority over immigration matters and the extent to which federal courts may review the exercise of that authority. Judges asked about the President’s alleged “Muslim ban” statements and their impact on the validity of the Proclamation. The government attorney properly explained that the statements are irrelevant to the court’s analysis on whether the injunction against the Proclamation should be vacated, which it should. The government attorney also correctly noted that sufficient national security findings support the Proclamation and that the President’s determination for the necessity of the Proclamation should not be second-guessed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the Hawaii case earlier last week. Decisions from both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits are expected soon.

You can find further analysis about the National Security Proclamation and Executive Order by searching the ACLJ’s website.

Defend Our National Security from Jihad

National Security  Signatures


Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

Make this a monthly tax-deductible gift.

As we aggressively fight to protect our national security and Christians, we urgently need your support. Defend America & Christians today.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.
Encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.

Jim Acosta Makes the Case For the Wall

By Jordan Sekulow1547240101804

Walls are about letting good people in, and keeping bad people out. Illustrating this point yesterday, CNN’s Jim Acosta reported that steel barriers work to keep borders safe and peaceful. Today on the show, we discussed how CNN correspondent Jim Acosta – a notoriously vocal critic of the President...

read more

JSL: President Trump on Emergency at the Border

By Jay Sekulow1547068440582

“How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?” That was the question President Trump posed to the American people last night. Today on the show, we discussed the President’s address to the nation last night. The President laid out the case from the Oval Office for taking...

read more

Radio Recap: President to Address Nation

By Jay Sekulow1546993296873

The President tried to present his case for increased border security to Congress, and the Left refused to listen. Tonight, President Trump is speaking directly to the American people. On today’s broadcast, we discussed the President’s planned address tonight where he’ll be discussing the state of...

read more

JSL: Will the President Declare a National Emergency

By Jay Sekulow1546893326379

Is the refusal of Congress to fund necessary protection along our southern border cause for declaring a national emergency and using Department of Defense dollars for border security? We think so, and so does the President. On today’s broadcast, we discussed President Trump’s threat to “declare a...

read more