Civil and Human Rights

CAC Urges House of Representatives to vote YES on the NO BAN Act

The Trump Administration has prohibited entry into the United States by nationals of 13 primarily Muslim-majority countries. The President’s proclamations purport to be data-driven, focused on countries that fail to comport with information-sharing and identity-management protocols; but the record reveals that the proclamations were intended to target Muslims. As we argued at the United States Supreme Court on behalf of members of Congress, the President’s proclamations cannot be squared with either our Constitution’s system of separation of powers or the First Amendment’s promise of religious neutrality.

The best way to protect the nation’s security, while also upholding foundational American values, is to respect the Constitution’s fundamental protections and the laws passed by Congress. The Framers of our Constitution took pains to create a system that denied the President the power to both make the law and then execute it, recognizing that such concentrated power threatens liberty. The Framers gave the legislative power, including the authority to make rules concerning immigration, to Congress, ensuring that control of our borders would not be left to the “absolute dominion of one man.”

CAC strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote YES on H.R. 2214, the NO BAN Act, which would: (1) repeal two iterations of the Muslim Ban; (2) amend the INA’s nondiscrimination provision to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on religion and to apply all non-discrimination protections to immigrant and non-immigrant visa applicants alike; and (3) limit overly broad executive authority to issue future bans by, among other things, imposing stricter reporting requirements to Congress. The NO BAN Act is a critical step towards ensuring that Muslims and other communities are not subjected to unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination.

 

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans