Plaintiffs and Counsel Respond to Supreme Court Canceling Oral Arguments in Muslim Ban Case

WASHINGTON — Today, the Supreme Court removed Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project from the oral argument calendar. The parties are now required to submit briefs by October 5 to determine the impact of last night’s proclamation amending the previous executive order.

In response to these developments, plaintiffs and counsel in Trump v. IRAP issued the following statements:

Mariko Hirose, litigation director of the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center:
“We vowed to fight the Muslim ban in all of its iterations. The president’s most recent proclamation is merely a continuation of the Muslim ban executive order, and we plan to continue to challenge the government’s discriminatory and unconstitutional policy in any way we can.”

Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that protects refugees and a plaintiff:
“This ban was wrong on January 27, it was wrong on March 6, and it’s wrong now. HIAS and our supporters in the American Jewish community will always oppose the unfair targeting of vulnerable communities because we know from our own history what it’s like to be singled out in the name of national security.”

Beth Baron, president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA):
“We will continue to stand with our fellow plaintiffs in opposition to Muslim ban 3.0. This most recent iteration of the ban continues to harm our student and faculty members by disrupting travel, research, and the free exchange of ideas. It is grounded in unconstitutional discrimination against Muslim Americans and violates our core beliefs.”

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), co-counsel in the case:
“Our goal from the start has been clear: We will work — inside and outside the courtroom — to make sure there is no Muslim ban ever. We will collaborate with our Muslim community leaders and all the affected communities to make sure our country rejects this hateful and divisive policy.”

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project:
“This action by the Supreme Court is not surprising given the government’s decision to issue a new version of the ban at the eleventh hour. Both sides will address the implications of that new ban order for the existing case in written submissions to the court. The ban has been repeatedly held unconstitutional and illegal by the courts, and those decisions remain in place today.”

###