President Donald Trump’s executive orders restricting immigration from several Muslim-majority countries are the Muslim ban that he promised on the campaign trail. They violate religious freedom by singling out one religious group—Muslims—for discrimination based solely on religion. And that’s not only unconstitutional, it’s downright un-American.
 

Americans United joined allied organizations in filing a federal lawsuit against President Trump’s Muslim ban 2.0.

 

The lawsuit, UMAA v. Trump, shows the many ways Trump’s cruel and unconstitutional policy harms the American Muslim community. The main plaintiff is the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA), the country’s largest organization of Shi’a Muslims, whose members are being deprived of religious learning, worship and service because Shi’a scholars hail almost exclusively from Iran, Iraq and Syria. 

Read the complaint here

Read the statement issued by Americans United, 
Muslim Advocates and the Southern Poverty Law Center

Read a blog explaining the case here

 




 
  • June 26: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in two of the Muslim ban cases, IRAP v. Trump and State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump. The court also allowed the ban to take effect for people without ties to the United States. Read AU's statement on the decision and our blogs about this and other Supreme Court actions. AU's attorneys explained the Court's actions in this Facebook Live video.

  • June 12: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle upheld the preliminary injunction blocking Muslim Ban 2.0 from going into effect. The ruling came in State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump, a case in which Americans United was joined by allies in filing a friend-of-the-court brief. Read AU's statement on the decision here.

  • May 25: The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia upheld the preliminary injunction blocking Muslim Ban 2.0 from going into effect. The ruling came in IRAP v. Trump, a case in which Americans United was joined by allies in filing a friend-of-the-court brief. The court called Trump’s directive “an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” Read AU's statement and blog about the decision, and watch a Facebook Live video of our attorneys explaining the court's order.

  • May 11: U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington, D.C., issued an order in UMAA v. Trump (the lawsuit AU filed with our allies) that indicates the judge believes the president’s Muslim-ban executive order likely violates the First Amendment. The judge declined to issue our requested preliminary injunction because two other federal courts already have blocked the ban from going into effect. But Judge Chutkan indicated that she is ready to rule “without delay” if both of the existing injunctions are lifted by federal appeals courts.

  • May 8: The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia heard arguments in IRAP v. Trump on whether the nationwide preliminary injunction blocking Muslim Ban 2.0 should remain in place. A federal judge in Maryland had issued the injunction in early March. Americans United and our allies filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case. Our attorneys attended the hearing and offered commentary in a Facebook Live video.
  • April 21: Americans United and our allies presented arguments to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington, D.C., to put Muslim Ban 2.0 on hold nationwide while our case, UMAA v. Trump, proceeds. This is the first time our case went before a judge.
  • April 21: Americans United, joined by Bend the Arc, the Southern Poverty Law Center, seven faith leaders and the Riverside Church in New York City, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We argue that the court should uphold the lower court’s order, which blocked President Trump’s Muslim Ban 2.0 from being enforced nationwide. Read a blog about why the clergy joined our brief.
  • April 19: Americans United, joined by Bend the Arc, the Southern Poverty Law Center, five faith leaders and the Riverside Church in New York City, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in IRAP v. Trump in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We argue that the court should uphold the lower court’s order, which blocked President Trump’s second ban on immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries from being enforced nationwide. Read a blog about why the clergy joined our brief.
  • March 24: Americans United joined Muslim Advocates, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in filing a new lawsuit, UMAA v. Trump, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit was filed on behalf of the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA), whose Shi’a Muslim members are being deprived of access to their religious scholars from Iran, Iraq and Syria. Read our statement and blog about the case.
     
  • March 15: The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking Muslim Ban 2.0 hours before it was scheduled to go into effect. Americans United had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case, State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump.
  • March 10: Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Joined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, we argue that Muslim Ban 2.0 still has the same problem as the original order, mainly that the ban violates religious freedom by singling out one religious group for discrimination based solely upon their religion.
  • March 6: President Trump issued a new executive order that still bars immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries. Americans United calls it Muslim Ban 2.0, and we'll continue to fight against this religious-based discrimination.
  • March 1: Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case Pars Equality Center v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Joined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, we argue that the first Muslim ban violates religious freedom by singling out one religious group — Muslims — for discrimination based solely upon their religion.
  • March 1: AU Attorney Bradley Girard, Faith Organizer Bill Mefford and Field Associate Erin Hagen joined with Kristin Garrity Şekerci from The Bridge Initiative (a Georgetown University multi-year research project on Islamophobia) to host a Facebook Live training, “Standing With Our Muslim Neighbors.”
  • Feb. 13: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the first Muslim ban from being implemented in Virginia. The judge's ruling references the conflict between Trump's executive order and the First Amendment's guarantee that government can't single out a religion for disfavor — the basis for AU's argument in the case.
  • Feb. 9: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the administration’s requests to put the first Muslim ban back into effect, keeping the hold in place nationwide.  
     


Universal Muslim Association of America v. Trump

On May 11, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington, D.C., issued an order that indicates the judge believes the president’s Muslim Ban 2.0 likely violates the First Amendment. The judge declined to issue the preliminary injunction AU had requested because two other federal courts already have blocked the ban from going into effect. But Judge Chutkan indicated that she is ready to rule “without delay” if both of the existing injunctions are lifted by federal appeals courts. On March 24, Americans United joined with Muslim Advocates, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in filing UMAA v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit was filed on behalf of the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA), whose Shi’a Muslim members are being deprived of access to their religious scholars from Iran, Iraq and Syria.

The district court's May 11 decision

AU’s complaint


State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in IRAP v. Trump and State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump and allowed the Muslim ban to take effect for people without ties to the United States. The high court’s action comes after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump, which had upheld the preliminary injunction blocking Muslim Ban 2.0. AU had been joined by Bend the Arc, the Southern Poverty Law Center, seven faith leaders and the Riverside Church in New York City in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in this case. The appeals court had largely kept in place the injunction issued by Judge Watson in Hawaii, who first blocked the Muslim ban on March 15.

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 26 opinion

The 9th Circuit's June 12 decision

AU's amicus brief in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The district court's March 29 decision

The district court's March 15 decision

AU's amicus brief in the District of Hawaii


International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in IRAP v. Trump and State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump and allowed the Muslim ban to take effect for people without ties to the United States. The high court’s action comes after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in IRAP v. Trump, which had upheld the preliminary injunction blocking Muslim Ban 2.0.  AU had been joined by Bend the Arc, the Southern Poverty Law Center, five faith leaders and the Riverside Church in New York City in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in this case. Judge Chuang in Maryland had issued a nationwide injunction against Muslim Ban 2.0 in this case on March 16. 

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 26 opinion

The 4th Circuit's decision

AU's amicus brief in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The district court’s March 16 decision


State of Washington v. Trump

On Feb. 3, Judge Robart of the Western District of Washington entered a nationwide temporary restraining order, placing the first Muslim ban on hold and restoring the status quo. His decision was affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 9. After Trump issued the second Muslim ban, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to address the new ban, and the case is ongoing.

The 9th Circuit’s decision

AU’s amicus brief in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

AU’s amicus brief in the Western District of Washington


Pars Equality Center v. Trump

On March 1, Americans United was joined by the Southern Poverty Law Center in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in this case that originally was filed against the first Muslim ban in District Court for the District of Columbia. After Trump issued the second Muslim ban, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to address the new ban, and the case is ongoing.

AU's amicus brief in the District of Columbia


Aziz v. Trump

On Feb. 13, Judge Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a preliminary injunction against the travel-ban portion of President Trump's first executive order. This injunction, which only applies to Virginia, means that the first Muslim ban will not take effect while the case in Virginia is litigated. Importantly, Judge Brinkema's decision was based on her finding that the ban was indeed a Muslim ban and thus that it likely violated the First Amendment.

The district court's decision

AU’s amicus brief in the Eastern District of Virginia

 

Americans United: U.S. Supreme Court Should Rule Against President Trump’s Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Americans United Hails Another Victory Against President Trump’s Un-American Muslim Ban

Americans United: Victory On Muslim Ban; No One Should Be Singled Out For Discrimination Based On Religious Beliefs

Americans United, Muslim Advocates and SPLC File Lawsuit Against Muslim Ban 2.0

Trump's New Executive Order on Immigration Is Still An Offensive, Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Americans United Applauds Appeals Court Ruling On Trump’s Muslim Ban

 

What’s Next For Trump’s Muslim Ban

The Supreme Court Took Three Important Actions Today. Here’s What They Mean For Church-State Separation

Federal Appeals Court Refuses To Reinstate Muslim Ban 2.0

Christian Clergy Join AU In Challenging Trump’s Muslim Ban

Americans United And Its Allies Just Struck Another Courtroom Blow Against Trump’s Muslim Ban

Appeals Court Will Hear Arguments Today In An Important Muslim Ban Case

Americans United And Allies In Court Today Arguing For Nationwide Block Of Muslim Ban 2.0

Americans United And Its Allies File Lawsuit Challenging President Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0

Federal Judges Continue To Block President Trump's Muslim Ban

AU Continues The Legal Fight Against President Trump's Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Trump's New Muslim Ban: Still Illegal, Still An Insult To American Values

Standing With Our Muslim Neighbors: How You Can Be An Ally

Another Court, Ruling Against Trump's Muslim Ban, Agrees with AU's Religious Freedom Arguments

The Legal Challenge To Trump’s Muslim Ban Reaches The Next Level – And AU Is In The Thick Of It

Trump’s Muslim Ban Offends American Values – And That’s Why Americans United Is Helping Take Him On In Court

Trump's Muslim Ban: A Promise Made And, Tragically, Kept

This Weekend At Dulles International Airport

AU Supports Faith Leaders In Opposing Ban on Muslim Immigrants

Trump’s Expected Order Targeting Muslims Is Un-American and Breaks Our Nation’s Promise of Religious Freedom
 

 

  • AU Attorneys Carmen Green, Bradley Girard and Andrew Nellis on June 26 explain the Supreme Court's actions in the Muslim ban cases IRAP v. Trump and State of Hawaiʻi v. Trump, as well as rulings in two other cases with significant implications for religions freedom: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)
  • AU Attorneys Bradley Girard and Andrew Nellis on May 25 explain the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' order in IRAP v. Trump that keeps Muslim Ban 2.0 on hold nationwide: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)

 

  • AU Attorneys Andrew Nellis and Kelly Percival, standing outside the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. on May 8, discuss the arguments presented in IRAP v. Trump on whether the nationwide preliminary injunction blocking Muslim Ban 2.0 should remain in place: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)
  • AU Attorneys Kelly Percival and Andrew Nellis, standing outside the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on April 21, discuss the arguments presented in UMAA v. Trump, our lawsuit challenging President Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)

 

  • AU Attorneys Kelly Percival and Andrew Nellis describe UMAA v. Trump, the lawsuit AU and our allies filed on March 24 to challenge President Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)

 

  • AU Attorney Bradley Girard, Field Associate Erin Hagen and Faith Organizer Bill Mefford joined Kristin Garrity Şekerci from The Bridge Initiative (a Georgetown University multi-year research project on Islamophobia) on March 1 to host a Facebook Live training, “Standing With Our Muslim Neighbors": (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)

 

  • AU Attorneys Andrew Nellis and Bradley Girard explain the 9th Circuit Court's Feb. 13 ruling that keeps the Muslim ban on hold nationwide: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)

 

  • Speaking from Seattle, AU attorneys Bradley Girard and Andrew Nellis explain a U.S. District Court judge's Feb. 9 ruling in Washington v. Trump, which put a hold on the Muslim ban nationwide: (if video is not loading, watch on Facebook)