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
March 23, 2020

RELEASE: Reaction to Court’s Ruling in Allen v. Cooper

WASHINGTON – On news this morning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper,...
By: David H. Gans, Dayna Zolle
Civil and Human Rights
March 23, 2020

RELEASE: CAC Reacts to Court’s Discrimination Ruling

“Racial discrimination can infect the contract formation process, and that isn’t altered simply because those...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Civil and Human Rights
March 4, 2020

RELEASE: Chief Justice Roberts Could Determine Fate Of Abortion Law

“During yesterday’s oral argument in the CFPB case, Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the Court’s...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
January 20, 2020

OP-ED: To fulfill Martin Luther King’s Jr’s dream, we must address police racism and brutality

Sacramento Bee (McClatchy News Service)
More than a half-century after Dr. King’s death, discriminatory policing persists. Racial profiling, time and...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
December 2, 2019

Abortion-Rights Groups Weigh in on SCOTUS Privileges Fight

Bloomberg Law
Admitting privileges law imposes significant burdens Provides no benefits, briefs say
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo

In June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision to uphold Louisiana’s Act 620, a law which requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at...