This story is unavailable.

“…This interpretation of that 2000 amendment has clear implications for Trump’s Muslim ban. Even if Mandel does prohibit courts from examining Trump’s true motive for issuing the Muslim ban when that ban is challenged under the First Amendment, Mandel does not prevent courts from searching for Trump’s true motive in a RFRA suit.
Hobby Lobby effects “a complete separation” between RFRA and the First Amendment, and that complete separation includes Mandel…”

Candidate Trump mentioned Muslim ban.

President Trump did not.

The RFRA placed additional obligations on the federal government to ensure the practicing of one’s chosen faith would not be unduly burdened by a federal action, policy, or law.

No foreigner, from ANYWHERE, has ANY Constitutional right(s) to be admitted to the United States, so how does the RFRA have any legal application for Muslims who have never stepped foot on American soil?

They are still quite free to practice their religion in their respective countries, AND, if they are subsequently allowed to emigrate to the US after the extreme vetting President Trump promised, (also Constitutional,) they will be just as free to practice it here.

I’m certainly no lawyer, but the RFRA in this instance, seems applicable only to the practice or hindrance of religious freedom for those already in America.

I don’t see where the ‘standing’ would be to even file suit.

Knowing liberals, and their penchant for rushing headlong into madness, even if it does get heard in a US court, President Trump’s motive is what President Trump says his motive is, not some paranoid ideologically-driven attribution of what someone else thinks it is or might be.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.