The Religious Bigotry of Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban: Muslim Advocates’ Supreme Court Amicus Brief

Since signing the first Muslim ban into effect in February, Donald Trump has tried to claim that the bigoted executive order is not religious discrimination. Earlier today, Muslim Advocates filed an amicus brief laying out exactly why that is a lie — and why the Muslim ban is religious discrimination that must be stopped for good.

Much of the emphasis in the lower-court challenges to the Muslim ban has centered on the voluminous record of anti-Muslim statements and campaign promises made by President Trump and his surrogates. This amicus brief, which is filed on behalf of some of the nation’s leading social science researchers, documents how references to the term “honor killings” in the Muslim ban can only be properly understood as reflections of anti-Muslim hatred.

Both versions of the Muslim ban contain on their face an inexplicable religious reference that reveals an invidious anti-Muslim intent. The practice of ‘honor killings’ has never been linked to international terrorism, nor is there any known association between “honor killings” and the six banned countries.

Instead, the term is frequently used as a dog whistle, meant to invoke and reinforce hatred toward Muslims by painting them as violent and uncivilized. The term is routinely invoked in discriminatory invective as a way to stigmatize Muslims.

Along with the amicus brief, Muslim Advocates is also releasing a fact sheet and issue brief on the significance of the reference to “honor killings” in President Trump’s Muslim and refugee bans.

Today’s amicus brief was filed by Muslim Advocates, along with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and law professor Aziz Huq.