Trump’s Travel Ban Has Nothing To Do With The First Amendment – The Federalist
President Trumps executive order on immigration was back in federal court on Monday. This time around, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Trump administrations appeal of a ruling that blocked the travel ban. Next Monday, the Ninth Circuit will hear a separate appeal related to the order.
The White House has maintained that a temporary ban on entry from six Muslim-majority countries is needed for national security reasons. Detractors say the ban is meant to target Muslims, and point to statements Trump made on the campaign trail last year calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. Therefore, the argument goes, the executive order amounts to religious discrimination and violates the First Amendments Establishment Clause.
The 13-judge en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit appeared to take this argument seriously on Monday, with one judge asking if there was anything other than willful blindness that should prevent the court from considering Trumps comments.
Since this issue isnt going away any time soon, lets get something straight: the executive order does not violate the Establishment Clause, and in fact has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Simply put, theres no legal basis for courts to consider statements a politician made before taking office to ascertain his motives for subsequent policy decisions. Policies are either constitutional or unconstitutional on their merits, not because a liberal judge in Washington or Hawaii or Maryland thinks Trump is a bigot.
If the president wants to restrict immigration from certain countries for national security reasons, it is well within his constitutional power to do so. It might be bad policy, it might prove inconvenient for certain businesses and universities, it might even offend the prime minister of Canada, but its not religious discriminationand pointing to past statements to argue that it is sets a very dangerous precedent.
Trump said a lot of things on the campaign trail, but as were discovering with each passing week, he doesnt always mean what he says. He said he would label China a currency manipulator, but no. He said NATO is obsolete, but now its not. He said he would build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but now it looks like the wall might be delayed indefinitely. More than most politicians, Trumps campaign pronouncement should be taken with a hearty dose of salt.
But even if Trump really meant what he said about barring Muslims from the United States, it wouldnt matter from a legal standpoint. Consider the background of Trumps travel ban saga. The initial order, issued in January just one week into his presidency, was blocked on due process grounds. The White House withdrew that order and issued a new, softer order in March designed to address the due process complaints. But federal trial judges in Maryland and Hawaii immediately blocked that one, too, on the grounds that the legal challenges to the orderalleging it violates the First Amendment prohibition on religious discriminationwere likely to prevail.
As evidence, challengers cited Trumps campaign rhetoric about a Muslim ban. Their argument is straightforward enough: Trump said during his presidential campaign that he would ban Muslims, then issued an order temporarily banning entry from six Muslim-majority countries. Hence, Trump violated the Constitution.
But as Eugene Kontorovich noted at The Volokh Conspiracy back in February, theres absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politicians statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive.
Indeed, a brief examination of cases suggests the idea has been too wild to suggest. For example, the 10th Circuit has rejected the use of a district attorneys campaign statements against certain viewpoints to show that a prosecution he commenced a few days after office was bad faith or harassment. As the court explained, even looking at such statements would chill debate during campaign[s]. If campaign statements can be policed, the court concluded, it would in short undermine democracy: the political process for selecting prosecutors should reflect the publics judgment as to the proper enforcement of the criminal laws. Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995).
The reason for this should be fairly obvious: the purpose of campaign rhetoric is to get elected, not formulate policylet alone govern. A would-be president has no legal obligation to the Constitution before taking the oath of office; he is merely a private citizen. (Perhaps, as in Trumps case, a blowhard and a braggart with half-formed ideas, but a private citizen nonetheless.) Once a candidate wins office, he or she is sworn to uphold the duties of that office, not fulfill every promise uttered during the campaign.
This is especially true of the president, who sits atop a vast executive branch that formulates and enforces myriad policies pursuant to its various functions. To say that Trump cant exercise certain executive powers because of what he said last year, or 20 years ago, is tantamount to saying he cant really be president because he holds views the judiciary finds offensive. After all, surely some Americans voted for Trump precisely because he promised to ban Muslims. In appealing to those voters, are we to assume Trump forfeited some of his constitutional powers?
Thankfully, the absurdity of imputing policy motives to the entire executive branch based on Trumps campaign slogans was not lost on every federal judge who heard arguments about the travel ban. One of the judges on the Ninth Circuit, which upheld a stay on Trumps first executive order back in January but declined to address the Establishment Clause question, recognized the folly of suggesting Trumps campaign rhetoric amounts to a violation of the First Amendment.
In a dissent filed in March, Judge Alex Kozinski lambasted his fellow judges for going on an evidentiary snark hunt to prove Trump meant what he said on the campaign trail about banning Muslims.
This is folly. Candidates say many things on the campaign trail; they are often contradictory or inflammatory. No shortage of dark purpose can be found by sifting through the daily promises of a drowning candidate, when in truth the poor shlubs only intention is to get elected. No Supreme Court caseindeed no case anywhere that I am aware ofsweeps so widely in probing politicians for unconstitutional motives. And why stop with the campaign? Personal histories, public and private, can become a scavenger hunt for statements that a clever lawyer can characterize as proof of a -phobia or an -ism, with the prefix depending on the constitutional challenge of the day.
When two Ninth Circuit judges suggested it was inappropriate for Kozinski to address the establishment question because it was not before the court, Kozinski wrote that his colleagues effort to muzzle criticism of an egregiously wrong panel opinion betrays their insecurity about the opinions legal analysis.
If there is a First Amendment issue in the case, Kozinski argued, it was about Trumps own free speech protections, not the Establishment Clause. After all, relying on campaign speeches and slogans to prove discriminatory intent would abrogate political candidates right to engage in free speech. This path is strewn with danger, writes Kozinski, citing a 2014 Supreme Court case, McCutcheon v. FEC. It will chill campaign speech, despite the fact that our most basic free speech principles have their fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.
In the coming weeks and months, were going to keep hearing about the constitutionality of Trumps travel ban. Dont be fooled. This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with deep-seated contempt for Trumpand not just Trump, but every American who thinks a temporary ban on immigration from certain countries might be a good idea.
Read more here:
Trump's Travel Ban Has Nothing To Do With The First Amendment - The Federalist
- How Tempe debate over feeding homeless at parks is becoming a First Amendment conversation - KJZZ - July 10th, 2025 [July 10th, 2025]
- IRS: Pastors and Politicians Dont Lose First Amendment Rights in Pulpit - Focus on the Family - July 10th, 2025 [July 10th, 2025]
- Trump admin waffles in court on whether pro-Palestinian foreigners have full First Amendment rights - Politico - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- Airlines deportation deal with ICE sparks protests and boycott campaign, leading to First Amendment battle - The Free Speech Project - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- Trump Judges Find No First Amendment Problem With Florida Forcing Teachers to Misgender Themselves - Balls and Strikes - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- High Court To Hear Street Preacher's First Amendment Case - Law360 - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- The Columbus Connection First Amendment, Independence Day Thoughts, and Happy Birthday CCN - Columbus County News - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Paramounts Trump Lawsuit Settlement: Curtain Call for the First Amendment? (Guest Column) - IMDb - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Fourth of July is a reminder to understand your First Amendment rights - The News Journal - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Big Tech Can't Hide Behind the First Amendment Anymore | Opinion - Newsweek - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- FIRE amicus brief: First Amendment bars using schoolkid standards to silence parents' speech - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Protects CNN's Reporting on ICEBlock and Iran - Reason Magazine - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- MCPS to pay $125K to two county residents who sued over alleged First Amendment violations - Bethesda Magazine - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Commentary: Winter Garden arrest threat violated First Amendment rights - Orlando Sentinel - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- First Amendment Expert Responds To BHUSD Policy - Hoover Institution - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Donald Trump: the surprise force who saved the First Amendment - Washington Times - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Paramount Will Pay $16 Million in Settlement With Trump Over 60 Minutes Interview - First Amendment Watch - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Trump Judges Reject First Amendment Challenge and Uphold Florida Law Requiring Teachers to Use Only Pronouns that Align with their Gender at Birth -... - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Justice Thomas sounds alarm on courts misapplying First Amendment in political speech cases - Courthouse News - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- 'The full rigor of the Court's resources': Judge warns Trump against witness 'retribution' in First Amendment case over threatened deportations - Law... - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Federal Appellate Court Finds that School Board President Violated First Amendment in Restricting Followers on Social Media - JD Supra - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Protecting Kids Shouldnt Mean Weakening the First Amendment - Public Knowledge - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Opinion - Jesse Green: Congress must not violate First Amendment in fight against anti-semitism - Northern Kentucky Tribune - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- VICTORY: New York high school to strengthen First Amendment protections following FIRE lawsuit - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and... - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- FCCs First Amendment Tour Arrives in Kentucky - The Daily Yonder - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- ACLU of Pennsylvania Applauds Passage of Legislation to Expand First Amendment Protections in the Commonwealth - ACLU of Pennsylvania - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- FIRE to court: AI speech is still speech and the First Amendment still applies - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Podcast: Broadcast Journalism, First Amendment, and the Future - Wisconsin Broadcasters Association - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Advertising Companies Cave to the FTC. Media Matters Sues To Defend the First Amendment. - Reason Magazine - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Punishing Universities for Their Viewpoints Violates the First Amendment - Cato Institute - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Palestinian Student Sues Michigan School Over Teachers Reaction to Her Refusal To Stand for Pledge - First Amendment Watch - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- CDT and EFF Urge Court to Carefully Consider Users First Amendment Rights in Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. - - Center for Democracy and... - June 24th, 2025 [June 24th, 2025]
- University of Oregon ordered to cover legal fees after settling First Amendment lawsuit - Campus Reform - June 24th, 2025 [June 24th, 2025]
- City attorney cites First Amendment rights in allowing rally; Third Street to open soon - Northern Wyoming News - June 20th, 2025 [June 20th, 2025]
- Guest column: 1,000 gathered in Oak Ridge to defend First Amendment - Oak Ridger - June 20th, 2025 [June 20th, 2025]
- Fighting Antisemitism Should Not Come at the Expense of the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- How Hawley, Marshall choose Trump over the First Amendment | Opinion - Kansas City Star - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- FARRAND: Saturday was a day we exercised three of our First Amendment rights - thenewsherald.com - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The State of the First Amendment in the University of North Carolina System - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The First Amendment is Again in Colorados Crosshairs - The Federalist Society - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The Military Parade and Protections of the First Amendment - Just Security - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Court ruling clarifies limits of NCs First Amendment protection - Carolina Journal - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Letter to the Editor - Campbell County Democrats Cherish First Amendment Rights - The Mountain Press - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Editorial: Lets remember the peaceably part of First Amendment - Everett Herald - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- PETA Sues NIH, NIMH in Groundbreaking First Amendment Lawsuit - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- First Amendment expert explains the right to protest amid 'No Kings' movement - CBS News - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- ACLU of Nevada shares guidelines for protesters to safeguard their First Amendment rights - KSNV - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Las Vegas ICE protests: First Amendment right or breaking the law? - KLAS 8 News Now - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Rights afforded to protestors by the First Amendment, and what it does not give you the right to do - Action News Now - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- What can and can't you do with your First Amendment right of free speech? - KMPH - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Is the backbone of democracy - Herald-Banner - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- First Amendment thoughts ahead of weekend protests | Whales Tales - Auburn Reporter - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Mass. AFL-CIO president says Trump administration is 'ripping up' the First Amendment - WBUR - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- No First Amendment Violation in Excluding Associated Press from "the Room Where It Happens" - Reason Magazine - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Contra the Trump FTC, Boycotts Are Protected by the First Amendment - RealClearMarkets - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Letter to the editor: Thanks to EPD for respecting my First Amendment rights on Palestine and Israel - Evanston RoundTable - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Texas Harassment Conviction for Sending 34 Messages Over 15 Weeks to Ex-Therapist Violates First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Opinion | This Trump Executive Order Is Bad for Human Rights and the First Amendment - The New York Times - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Contra the FTC, Boycotts Protected by First Amendment - RealClearMarkets - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump administration over funding cuts, alleging they violate First Amendment - CBS News - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Students Protesting the Genocide in Gaza Are Losing Their First Amendment Rights - splinter.com - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump administration, says executive order cutting federal funding violates First Amendment - Fox News - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump over funding cuts to public media and alleges First Amendment violation - Business Insider - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Trump Lawyers Claim 60 Minutes Harris Interview Caused Him Mental Anguish, Argue That the First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion in Motion to... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Trumps executive orders: Due process, breathtaking sweeps, and the evils of intentional vagueness First Amendment News 472 - FIRE | Foundation for... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Free speech is the rule: Alito wants more First Amendment protections for students after middle schooler is punished for wearing There Are Only Two... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Judge Denies Artificial Intelligence Chatbot First Amendment Protections in Lawsuit - FindLaw - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- NPR sues over Trump order cutting off its funding, citing First Amendment - Duncan Banner - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- South Bend Stops YouTubers Bid to Revive First Amendment Claim - Bloomberg Law News - May 17th, 2025 [May 17th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Likely Violated American Bar Association's First Amendment Rights - Reason Magazine - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- Perkins Coie Litigation Team Secures First Amendment Federal Court Win for DEF CON - Perkins Coie - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- How swiftly power can be weaponized against dissenting voicesincluding the free and open press as protected by the First Amendment - Northeast Valley... - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- NYUs First Amendment Watch Launches Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment - NYU - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- CCIA Files Amicus Brief Defending the First Amendment Rights of Email Service Providers - CCIA - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Zick on executive orders and official orthodoxies First Amendment News 469 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Why Journalists Must Band Together to Defend the First Amendment - PEN America - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Youngkin vetoes Confederate tax break roll back, but First Amendment scholar says that might be best - WHRO - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Baxter County facing $102,757 payment after losing eight-year First Amendment lawsuit - Mountain Home Observer - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- DOJ to investigate this new Washington law for first amendment violations - KGW - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]