Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
President Trump's Tweets Today Are More Evidence The Travel Ban Is Based in Animus
The Fourth Circuit's recent ruling that the revised travel ban is likely unconstitutional rests on an argument about motive. As the court concluded, the President's motive in issuing his order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries is unquestionably based on "animus." And as a matter of constitutional law, the President can't deliberately seek to target and harm (and exclude) Muslims. Indeed, prejudice can never be a rational basis for law, and in our system rationality is the most basic requirement for a law to be legitimate. The President's animus-laden motive taints the ban and violates the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection Clauses.
Today the President helped those of us who argue the ban is rooted in unconstitutional animus make our case.
In one tweet he admitted that the motive behind the first version of the travel ban was not "politically correct," criticizing his Attorney General for convincing him to rewrite the policy. This seems to concede that the first ban targeted Islam, an obviously impermissible motive. It is clear that by not "politically correct," the President is referring to targeting a disfavored religion, not targeting six (or seven) nations. No one thinks that targeting countries that posed an actual threat would be politically incorrect.
In his tweets today, President Trump also admitted that the two bans are essentially the same policy with different words. Dismissing his attorneys' own arguments in court, he wrote: "People the lawyers, and Courts can call it whatever they want."
This is a serious blow to his case. If the first travel ban is not "politically correct," meaning it targets Muslims, and the second travel ban is motivated by exactly the same goals (even though his lawyers can "call it what they want"), that means the second version of the travel ban is also animus-based and unconstitutional. These tweets resolve any doubt that President Trump's motive for the second ban is exactly the same (and exactly as unconstitutional) as his motive for the first one.
In short, the President had admitted that he never changed his original bad motive. Instead, he only asked (or allowed) his lawyers to mask it, a decision that he now appears to regret. The President confirms that as Rudy Guiliani told us early on, his lawyers were asked to make "it," meaning the Muslim ban, "legal." Thanks in part to the President's own recent tweets, the case for concluding that "it" is illegal has now become overwhelming.