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
CLINIC v. Rubio

CLINIC v. Rubio

This lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries.

Last update: Sep 11, 2026

Benefits for Immigrant Survivors of Trafficking, Domestic Violence, and Other Serious Crimes in California

Benefits for Immigrant Survivors of Trafficking, Domestic Violence, and Other Serious Crimes in California

Updated Sep 2, 2026 This resource reviews the two categories of immigrants covered by California's SB 1569 (trafficking survivors and U visa applicants/holders), the benefits they may receive, and what they need to show in order to get these benefits. Originally...

Alerta Comunitaria: Viajar con un “permiso adelantado” conlleva ahora vetos de 3 y 10 años

Alerta Comunitaria: Viajar con un “permiso adelantado” conlleva ahora vetos de 3 y 10 años

Published Sep 2, 2026 El 13 de agosto de 2026, el tribunal de apelaciones de los Estados Unidos (la Junta de Apelaciones de Inmigración, o “BIA” por sus siglas en inglés) cambió las consecuencias de viajar con un “permiso adelantado.” Lee este recurso...

Amid Reports of Mass Visa ‘Pause,’ Groups File Emergency Motion to Enforce Court Order Striking Down 75-Country Visa Ban

Amid Reports of Mass Visa ‘Pause,’ Groups File Emergency Motion to Enforce Court Order Striking Down 75-Country Visa Ban

Published Aug 26, 2026 Immigrant families, workers, and legal assistance groups harmed by the Trump administration’s 75-country ban on immigrant visas filed an emergency motion to enforce Friday’s court order and judgment in CLINIC v....