The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial. He was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make American Great Again hat was part of his spiritual belief.After hearing arguments, the judge took a short break and then ruled from the bench:
Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates.
The conservative Christian coalition that helped usher President Trump into power in 2016 is planning its largest midterm election mobilization ever, with volunteers fanning out from the church pews to the streets to register voters, raise money and persuade conservatives that they cannot afford to be complacent this year.Evangelicals cite a list of Trump's achievements as the basis for their continued support of candidates backing his agenda, despite the controversies surrounding Trump's alleged personal behavior:
He has begun the process of moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, won the confirmation of numerous judges and a Supreme Court Justice who seem likely to advance their anti-abortion cause, moved against transgender protections throughout the government, increased the ability of churches to organize politically and personally supported the March for Life.
to observe the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust, April 12 through April 19, 2018, and the solemn anniversary of the liberation of Nazi death camps, with appropriate study, prayers and commemoration, and to honor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution by internalizing the lessons of this atrocity so that it is never repeated.
Republic of Chad has improved its identity-management and information sharing practices sufficiently to meet the baseline security standard of the United States. Chad nationals will therefore again be able to receive visas for travel to the United States.
President Trump is not a member of Drollinger's group - but he is a Christian, and does get Drollinger's eight-page print-outs most weeks.
"He writes me back notes on my bible studies," says Drollinger.
"He's got this leaky Sharpie felt-tip pen that he writes all capital letters with. 'Way to go Ralph, really like this study, keep it up.' Stuff like that."[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
It is possible that the ban will never actually be put in place: while the Trump administration is framing the order as “a new policy developed through extensive study by senior uniformed and civilian leaders,” it is substantively the same as the previous Trump policy, which is currently facing multiple lawsuits on constitutional grounds. Four federal courts have issued injunctions in cases filed by civil rights groups, and may ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. The Pentagon said Friday that it will continue to abide by Obama-era policies welcoming transgender troops while those legal battles continue.
Around us stand the statues of heroes who led the nation in prayer during the great and difficult times, from Washington to Lincoln to Eisenhower to King.
And, today, in the center of this great chamber lies legendary Billy Graham, an ambassador for Christ who reminded the world of the power of prayer and the gift of God’s grace.
Today we honor him as only three private citizens before him have been so honored.
The court of appeals denied the cross-appeal below, which argued that the preliminary injunction should not have been limited to individuals with a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity. This petition seeks certiorari on that question, which is not presented in Hawai‘i. In addition, this petition raises the same four questions already before the Court in Hawai‘i, and requests that the cases be consolidated once again.Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.
[H]ere the Government’s proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the President himself. Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation’s purpose is driven by anti-Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President. This evidence includes President Trump’s disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims; his repeated proposals to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this “Muslim” ban by targeting “territories” instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1 and EO-2, addressed only to majority-Muslim nations; and finally the issuance of the Proclamation, which not only closely tracks EO-1 and EO-2, but which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same goal as EO-1 and EO-2.....While the majority ultimately concluded that it would not rely on President Trump's pre-election statements in reaching its conclusion, it nevertheless indicated that it would have been permissible to do so:
Perhaps in implicit recognition of the rawness of the religious animus in the President’s pre-election statements, the Government urges us to disregard them. This is a difficult argument to make given that the President and his advisors have repeatedly relied on these pre-election statements to explain the President’s post-election actions related to the travel ban.... [I]n McCreary, the Supreme Court reminded us that “the world is not made brand new every morning.” .... Because “reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” these statements certainly provide relevant context when examining the purpose of the Proclamation.The majority concluded:
In sum, the face of the Proclamation, read in the context of President Trump’s official statements, fails to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose. To the objective observer, the Proclamation continues to exhibit a primarily religious anti-Muslim objective. Our constitutional system creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for presidential action and we often defer to the political branches on issues related to immigration and national security. But the disposition in this case is compelled by the highly unusual facts here. Plaintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President of the United States has openly and often expressed his desire to ban those of Islamic faith from entering the United States. The Proclamation is thus not only a likely Establishment Clause violation, but also strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on “religious animosity.”Six of the judges would have also found a likelihood of success on at least some of plaintiffs' statutory challenges to the Proclamation. Four concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions were also filed. Pursuant to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court order, the court stayed the injunction pending a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on today's decision.
The Budget invests $1.1 billion in school choice programs to expand the range of high-quality public and private school options for students, putting more decision-making power in the hands of parents and families. This investment serves as a down payment toward achieving the President’s goal of an annual Federal investment of $20 billion—for a total of an estimated $100 billion when including matching State and local funds—in school choice funding. The Budget requests $500 million to establish a new school choice grant program to support a wide range of innovative approaches to school choice. These include expanding existing private school choice programs to serve more low-income and at-risk students, developing new private school choice models, or supporting school districts’ efforts to adopt student-based budgeting and open enrollment policies that enable Federal, State and local funding to follow the student to the public school of his or her choice....Americans United issued a press release criticizing school voucher programs, saying in part:
Vouchers divert desperately needed resources away from the public school system, which educates 90 percent of our students, to fund the education of a few voucher students in private, religious schools. Voucher programs are an ineffective and damaging education policy: they do not improve – and can even lead to declines in – student achievement. They also lack accountability to taxpayers, deprive students of civil rights protections and often provide students with fewer resources than they would have in public schools.
Vouchers violate the religious freedom of both taxpayers and religious schools. The government should not compel any citizen to furnish funds in support of a religion with which he or she disagrees – or even a religion with which he or she does agree. Vouchers also threaten the religious liberty and autonomy of religious schools, as vouchers open them up to government audits, monitoring, control and interference from which they would otherwise be exempt.
Each year, this event reminds us that faith is central to American life and to liberty. Our founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence. Our currency declares, “In God We Trust.” (Applause.) And we place our hands on our hearts as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proclaim we are “One Nation Under God.” (Applause.)
Our rights are not given to us by man; our rights come from our Creator. (Applause.) No matter what, no Earthly force can take those rights away. (Applause.) That is why the words “Praise be to God” are etched atop the Washington Monument, and those same words are etched into the hearts of our people.
... [S]tates may not deny qualification to family planning providers, or take other action against qualified family planning providers, that affects beneficiary access to those providers—whether individual providers, physician groups, outpatient clinics or hospitals—solely because they separately provide family planning services or the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care, including abortion services (not funded by federal Medicaid dollars, consistent with the federal prohibition), as part of their scope of practice.
The Proclamation, like its predecessor executive orders, relies on the premise that the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., vests the President with broad powers to regulate the entry of aliens. Those powers, however, are not without limit. We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority. The Government’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) not only upends the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has enacted through the INA, but it deviates from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well. Further, the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The Proclamation once again conflicts with the INA’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. Lastly, the President is without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation.The court avoided deciding the question of whether the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause. The court also limited the district court's preliminary injunction to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Also, as already ordered by the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit stayed its injunction pending Supreme Court review. Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.