Civil and Human Rights

CAC Advocates for a Clean Markup of 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 it is clear the proclamations were jerry-rigged 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 supports a clean markup of H.R. 2214, the NO BAN Act, which includes three critical components to fighting the Muslim Ban by: (1) repealing two iterations of the Muslim Ban; (2) amending 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) limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future bans by, among other things, imposing stricter reporting requirements to Congress. CAC would also support an amendment updating Section 4(a) of the Act to address Presidential Proclamation 9984, which was issued by the President after the introduction of the bill. 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
April 30, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.