Civil Rights Groups Argue in the Fourth Circuit to Challenge Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban

Jan 28, 2020

Enforcement Racial Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 28, 2020

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, [email protected]; 213-375-3149

Civil Rights Groups Argue in the Fourth Circuit to Challenge the Trump Administration’s Muslim Ban

WASHINGTON, DC —  Today, three years after the Trump administration announced the first iteration of the Muslim ban, civil rights groups argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in an ongoing challenge to the latest version of the Muslim ban, which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to remain in effect in 2018. Today’s hearing focused on whether to allow civil rights groups to demand from the government more information about the origins of the ban. Over the past three years, the administration has continued to separate families solely on the basis of where they are from and what religion they practice.

The case, International Refugee Assistance Project, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., is being argued in conjunction with two related cases, Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump and Zakzok v. Trump, and was brought by the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the International Refugee Assistance Project, HIAS, the Middle East Studies Association, and others.

Max Wolson, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement:

“Today, we argued to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Muslim ban is a policy derived from hate and that this case more than meets the legal requirements to proceed to discovery. The administration’s Muslim ban has proven to be the foundation on which the administration built each additional attack on immigrants and communities of color. Since it was announced in the first week of Trump’s presidency, the Muslim ban has become just one part of a long list of shameful policies with the same goal of making life difficult for low-income communities of color.

“The issues in this case have implications far beyond the direct impact of the ban, which has had devastating consequences for people who are separated from loved ones and forced to miss family milestones. This administration’s anti-immigrant policies are a direct affront to the values we have aspired to since our nation’s founding. We will continue to fight to ensure that all people — regardless of where they were born, the color of their skin, what they earn, or how they pray — can live freely and be treated fairly in this country.”

###

Related
Community Alert: Immigration Arrests at Airports

Community Alert: Immigration Arrests at Airports

Updated Jul 29, 2026 This resource provides travel safety tips and other resources for immigrants traveling through U.S. airports.

CHIRLA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

CHIRLA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

This lawsuit challenges a rule by the Trump administration, which requires millions of people to register with the federal government and carry proof of their registration with them at all times, or risk federal criminal...

Last update: Jul 27, 2026

NILC v. ICE

NILC v. ICE

This FOIA lawsuit challenges ICE's failure to produce records related to the administration's alarming increase in unlawful removals of people with pending immigration cases, stays of deportation, and court ordered...

Last update: Jul 15, 2026

How States Are Fighting Back Against Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine

How States Are Fighting Back Against Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine

Published Jul 9, 2026 This report captures pro-immigrant state laws enacted in 2025 and bills signed in the first five months of 2026 to address immigration enforcement.