WASHINGTON, D. C. – Attorney General Karl A. Racine has joined 16 fellow state attorneys general in continuing the fight against President Trump’s unconstitutional travel ban by filing an amicus brief in the International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The brief urges the court to reject the Trump administration’s request to reinstate the travel ban while it appeals a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which found the President’s scaled-back second executive order still likely violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

“President Trump’s revised immigration ban still retains components of the original order that I believe do not comport with the Constitution,” said Attorney General Racine. “We support continuing to block enforcement of this ban while the case is on appeal because allowing the ban to go into effect even temporarily would cause irreparable harm to District residents and visitors. We strongly believe this ban will ultimately be found unconstitutional.”

In urging the Court to continue the current injunction against the travel ban, the states make it clear that:

1. The Trump administration is unlikely to win their appeal;
2. The public interest strongly favors a continued injunction against the stay;
3. The Trump administration has not demonstrated the required “irreparable harm” that would entitle it to a stay; and
4. States and their residents will face significant harm if the ban goes into effect.

The attorneys general describe the significant harm their residents and states would experience if the ban were allowed to go into effect, writing:

“Letting the travel ban take effect would irreparably harm the Amici States. It would block entry by students, teachers, workers, and tourists from the six majority-Muslim countries. It would harm our citizens, lawful permanent residents, and resident visa holders, many of whom have family members and loved ones who would be presumptively denied entry. And it would amplify the message of fear and intimidation communicated to our Muslim communities by a President who has fulfilled his promise to single out Muslims for disfavored treatment.”

The states also explain that President Trump’s scaled-back second executive order still “violates the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] if President Trump’s primary purpose in issuing it was to keep his campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the country,” and “because the evidence of the President’s anti-Muslim animus was overwhelming and unrebutted,” the plaintiffs cannot succeed in their appeal.

The brief, which is attached, was co-led by Attorney General Mark R. Herring of Virginia and Attorney General Brian E. Frosh of Maryland, was joined by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.