Immigration and Citizenship

RELEASE: Constitutional Values Front and Center in Historic Muslim Travel Ban Arguments

The Supreme Court must determine whether it will repeat past mistakes and place national security fears above the law—or recognize that our government can keep our nation safe while respecting our laws and fundamental values.

WASHINGTON—Following oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court today over President Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra, who was present for the morning’s proceedings, issued the following reaction:

As counsel for Hawaii explained, the founders were deeply concerned that the immigration laws not be used to exclude followers of a particular faith.

That constitutional value of religious freedom was front and center today, as well as the compelling stories of the individuals directly impacted by this unlawful and discriminatory ban.

The hearing today was historic: The Supreme Court must determine whether it will repeat past mistakes and place national security fears above the law—or recognize that our government can keep our nation safe while respecting our laws and fundamental values.

#

Resources:

CAC brief in support of Hawaii on behalf of Members of Congress in Trump v. Hawaii: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/hawaii-v-trump/

“Our Constitution Forbids a Religious Test for Immigration,” David Gans, Take Care, April 19, 2018: https://takecareblog.com/blog/our-constitution-forbids-a-religious-test-for-immigration

“Trump’s new Muslim travel ban has same old problems,” Elizabeth Wydra, Seattle Times, April 14, 2017: http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trumps-new-muslim-travel-ban-has-same-old-problems/

##

Now in our tenth year, Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit the new CAC website at www.theusconstitution.org

###

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Montoya Palacios v. Liggins

In Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Equal Access to Justice Act authorizes the award of legal fees to unlawfully detained immigrants who prevail in habeas proceedings.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Morozov v. Field Office Director, U.S. ICE

In Morozov v. Field Office Director, U.S. ICE, the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Lugo-Solet v. Mullin

In Lugot-Solet v. Mullin, the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
June 30, 2026

Domicile Isn’t a Real Argument for Citizenship Says Wydra

Bloomberg Podcasts
CAC President Elizabeth Wydra joined Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on...
Immigration and Citizenship
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: In Birthright Citizenship Victory, Dissenting Justices Cast Aside Constitutional Text and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, a...
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
June 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Misunderstands Immigration Law—and the Presumption of Extraterritoriality—in Decision about Asylum-Seekers at the Border

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Noem v. Al Otro...
By: Smita Ghosh