Document Type
Book Review
Publication Date
2024
ISSN
2153-1358
Publisher
Harvard Law School
Language
en-US
Abstract
Throughout his campaign for presidency, Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. As President, he kept his word. Only days after he took office, the new administration released the first version of the Executive Order: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States. The first Executive Order, however, did not say the word Muslim. Instead, it listed only Muslim-majority countries as necessary for restrictions on entry. The Executive Order also trafficked in stereotypes about Muslims, such as the need to ban people who engage in acts of "bigotry or hatred," including honor killings. As scholars note, honor killings are often popularly understood as being linked to the "Middle East and South Asia." Lawyers and civil rights advocates objected to the ban. Protests at airports drew significant attention as droves of lawyers and activists stepped up to help people arriving into the United States. Recognizing this new form of hostility towards Muslims, signs went up in stores and restaurants around the United States, often featuring a woman wearing a hijab: "Everyone is Welcome Here." Eventually, litigation challenging the Executive Order made it to the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs, including the Muslim Association of Hawaii and individual Muslims, challenged the constitutionality of the law. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court found the Executive Order constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion dismisses the claims by the Plaintiffs that the Executive Orders were driven by anti-Muslim animus. The justices separate Trump's comments about Muslims from the Executive Order itself. They "look behind" the Executive Order and use rational basis review to uphold the order on the grounds that vetting immigrants could be "plausibly related to the Government's stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes" as an "independent justification" for its legality. For progressives, the unwillingness to read religious (and racial) animus into the law was a form of constitutional "gaslighting." In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor (writing for herself and Justice Ginsburg) concludes: "Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus."'
Recommended Citation
Aziza Ahmed,
Hidden in Plain Sight: Redefining the Field of National Security
,
15
Harvard National Security Journal
371
(2024).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/3898
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, National Security Law Commons
Comments
Review of RACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY. Edited by Matiangai Sirleaf Oxford University Press, 2023.