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 He said NATO is obsolete, but now its not.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
- News organizations sue Tennessee over police buffer law, citing First Amendment - Knoxville News Sentinel - July 30th, 2025 [July 30th, 2025]
- The ACLU says a New York official violated the NRA's First Amendment rights. They still can't sue her. - Reason Magazine - July 30th, 2025 [July 30th, 2025]
- Forced Labor and the First Amendment - The American Conservative - July 30th, 2025 [July 30th, 2025]
- Chris Hedges: Abolishing the First Amendment - Scheerpost - July 30th, 2025 [July 30th, 2025]
- Chronicle Editorial: Croton-Harmon school district's disdain for the First Amendment costs staff time and taxpayer money. - The Croton Chronicle - July 30th, 2025 [July 30th, 2025]
- Is AI a Horse or a Zebra When It Comes to the First Amendment? - Cato Institute - July 28th, 2025 [July 28th, 2025]
- First Amendment and immunity - Courthouse News Service - July 28th, 2025 [July 28th, 2025]
- Legal Case of Navy Diver Who Sued Newport Beach for First Amendment Violation Advances - California Globe - July 28th, 2025 [July 28th, 2025]
- News organizations sue TN over police buffer law, citing First Amendment - The Tennessean - July 28th, 2025 [July 28th, 2025]
- AFPI Sues Oregon School Activities Association for Silencing Female Athletes First Amendment Rights - America First Policy Institute - July 28th, 2025 [July 28th, 2025]
- NEWTON: Battle between Trump and the First Amendment continues - The Covington News - July 27th, 2025 [July 27th, 2025]
- That eerie sound youre hearing is the First Amendment falling - rawstory.com - July 27th, 2025 [July 27th, 2025]
- TRUMP GOES TOO FAR: Colbert cancellation puts spotlight on Trump war on the First Amendment - MSNBC News - July 27th, 2025 [July 27th, 2025]
- First Amendment doesnt provide the right to be heard, Fourth Circuit finds - Courthouse News Service - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Pennsylvania officers face First Amendment lawsuit for trying to criminalize profanity and using patrol car to chase man who recorded police - FIRE |... - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Ninth Circuit Reinforces First Amendment Protections of Parent Banned from School District in Response to Speech the District Found Offensive -... - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Press Release: Reps. Hank Johnson and Sydney Kamlager-Dove Propose Bill to Safeguard Artists' First Amendment Rights - Quiver Quantitative - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- What the GOPs Epstein revolt says about the First Amendment - Claremont COURIER - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Protesters and demonstrators voice their first amendment right along the street of Canton - 25 News Now - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- First amendment vs. first-person shooter: Uvalde parents battle with 'Call of Duty' maker in court - Fortune - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Columbia University Says It Has Suspended and Expelled Students Who Participated in Protests - First Amendment Watch - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Stephen Colberts Late Show Is Canceled by CBS and Will End in May 2026 - First Amendment Watch - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- US will appeal decision finding punitive executive order against Jenner & Block violates First Amendment - ABA Journal - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- NPR loses. The First Amendment wins. - The Boston Globe - July 24th, 2025 [July 24th, 2025]
- Trial in AAUP Lawsuit Concludes With Clash Over First Amendment Rights of Noncitizens - The Harvard Crimson - July 22nd, 2025 [July 22nd, 2025]
- Harvard argues in court that Trump administration's funding freeze violated First Amendment - CBS News - July 22nd, 2025 [July 22nd, 2025]
- Harvard argues the government is in violation of the First Amendment. Trumps team frames the lawsuit as a contract dispute - CNN - July 22nd, 2025 [July 22nd, 2025]
- Standing up for Elmo and the First Amendment - Westerly Sun - July 22nd, 2025 [July 22nd, 2025]
- Why the Iowa Senate finally approved enhanced First Amendment protections - Bleeding Heartland - July 22nd, 2025 [July 22nd, 2025]
- First Amendment advocates urge open hearing for San Mateo County sheriff facing removal - The Mercury News - July 18th, 2025 [July 18th, 2025]
- Defeat the Press: How Donald Trumps Attacks on News Outlets Undermine the First Amendment - Variety - July 18th, 2025 [July 18th, 2025]
- An assault on the First Amendment? Yes. But also a lesson in the ethics of reporting police news. - Media Nation - July 18th, 2025 [July 18th, 2025]
- How Donald Trumps Attacks On News Outlets Undermine The First Amendment - TV News Check - July 18th, 2025 [July 18th, 2025]
- Who are First Amendment auditors? Encounters with them prompted police calls in California - Scripps News - July 16th, 2025 [July 16th, 2025]
- Greene County staff permitted to speak to press after pushback from First Amendment groups - The Daily Progress - July 16th, 2025 [July 16th, 2025]
- Death Threats Over Texas Flooding Cartoon Force Museum Journalism Event To Be Postponed - First Amendment Watch - July 16th, 2025 [July 16th, 2025]
- Its the right thing to do: Defense attorney picks up Shasta protester case pro bono, citing First Amendment concerns - Shasta Scout - July 12th, 2025 [July 12th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Protects Ideologically Based Ad Boycotts - Cato Institute - July 12th, 2025 [July 12th, 2025]
- IRS Finally Recognizes That the First Amendment Permits Pastors To Speak From the Pulpit - The Daily Signal - July 12th, 2025 [July 12th, 2025]
- Pocahontas Mayor Reacts Aggressively to Viral First Amendment Auditor - NEA Report - July 12th, 2025 [July 12th, 2025]
- ACLJ's Decades-Long Fight Leads to IRS Recognizing Churches' First Amendment Rights To Speak About Political Issues and Candidates From the Pulpit -... - July 12th, 2025 [July 12th, 2025]
- Central Piedmont fulfilling requests that would lead to First Amendment lawsuit being dropped: Plaintiffs - Queen City News - July 12th, 2025 [July 12th, 2025]
- 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]