Groups File New Challenge to Trump Muslim Ban

Feb 7, 2017

Border & Asylum Enforcement Racial Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2017

CONTACT
Juan Gastelum, NILC, 213-375-3149, [email protected]
Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU, 212-284-7347, [email protected]

Groups File New Challenge to Trump Muslim Ban

BALTIMORE — A new federal lawsuit was filed today challenging President Trump’s Muslim-ban executive order, charging it violates the Constitution—including the First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law—and federal laws.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Maryland, and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of HIAS and the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center, along with individuals, including U.S. citizens, impacted by the ban. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland.

The following are quotes from:

Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center. “We represent over 500 displaced families from Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere, who are desperate to find safety in the United States. The president’s discriminatory executive order has trapped these vulnerable people in life-threatening conditions. We are currently devoting nearly all of our resources to finding emergency remedies to protect them, when we should be utilizing existing legal pathways that could offer them permanent safety.”

Nicholas Espíritu, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “There is no question that President Trump’s executive order violates bedrock legal principles and protections, and that it singles out Muslims for disfavored treatment. We will not stand for this kind of government discrimination that clearly runs afoul of our Constitution and human decency. These actions are shameful and un-American.”

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “President Trump’s Muslim ban is unconstitutional. Appropriately, the government is currently prohibited from implementing the executive order, and the plaintiffs in this case stand ready to take further action to protect their rights.”

HIAS President and CEO Mark Hetfield. “As an organization that has long partnered with the U.S. government, litigation is unprecedented for HIAS, but we feel we have no other choice. We cannot remain silent as Muslim refugees are turned away just for being Muslim, just as we could not stand idly by when the U.S. turned away Jewish refugees fleeing Germany during the 1930s and 40s. Our history and our values, as Jews and as Americans, require us to fight this illegal and immoral new policy with every tool at our disposal—including litigation.”

A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DoesvTrump2.7.17.pdf

# # #

Related
How Anti-Black Racism Shapes Welfare Inequality for Immigrants

How Anti-Black Racism Shapes Welfare Inequality for Immigrants

Kat Lundie

Published Sep 18, 2026 Laws and policies throughout American history have consistently and systematically ensured that Black people and immigrants do not receive equal opportunities to escape poverty.

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...