As Expected, The Fourth Circuit Joins The Ninth, And Rules 9 to 4 That The Muslim Ban 3.0 Injunction Out Of Maryland Should Continue...

No surprise -- and (of course, as we've always said) all of this will ultimately be decided by the Supremes, come late summer, or early fall of 2018 (and my January 2018 backgrounder).

But 45 has yet to win a single matter on the merits, in any federal court. In fact he is now like 0-17, on procedural matters, related to his three would-be Muslim Bans. And make no mistake, folks -- he has openly said that is what he intends them to be. Here's a bit -- of the once again towering language of the opinion, just released by the Fourth Circuit (285 pages of PDF goodness!), this morning:

. . . .“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); accord Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982) (holding that Establishment Clause prohibits “one religious denomination [from being] officially preferred over another.”).

“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides.” McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005). “[T]he Establishment Clause forbids subtle departures from neutrality, ‘religious gerrymanders,’ as well as obvious abuses.” Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 452 (1971) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 696 (1970)). Similarly, “any covert suppression of particular religious beliefs” is unconstitutional. See Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 703 (1986) (plurality opinion). . . .

Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation’s purpose is driven by anti-Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President. This evidence includes President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims. . . .

The Government does not -- and, indeed, cannot -- dispute that the President made these statements. Instead, it argues that the “statements that occurred after the issuance of [Muslim Ban 2.0] do not reflect any religious animus” but reflect “the compelling secular goal of protecting national security from an amply-documented present threat.” We cannot agree.

Rather, an objective observer could conclude that the President’s repeated statements convey the primary purpose of the Proclamation -- to exclude Muslims from the United States. In fact, it is hard to imagine how an objective observer could come to any other conclusion when the President’s own deputy press secretary made this connection express: he explained that President Trump tweets extremist anti-Muslim videos as part of his broader concerns about “security,” which he has “addressed. . . with. . . the proclamation. . . .”

Onward -- to the Supremes, with a smile. Trump loses -- again. And. . . I am debating whether to add the latest Florida 17 (school kids, for God's sake) to the grim totals I've been tracking -- just since 45 took office. We are nearing 700 dead and injured, now (almost all these shooters are white males, with automatic weaponry). When is it going to be enough, for the Big Cheeto?



नमस्ते