The Court Fights against the Muslim Ban
The term “Muslim Ban” refers to Executive Order 13769, signed by President Donald Trump in January 2017, and successor versions of that order. Officially titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” this order initially restricted travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
The Muslim Ban faced numerous lawsuits brought by states, universities, and, most frequently, Muslims. One of the first significant rulings came from a federal judge in Washington state who issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking major parts of the ban. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this restraining order. The Fourth Circuit soon followed suit with a similar ruling.
In response to legal setbacks, the Trump administration issued revised versions of the ban. Executive Order 13780, issued in March 2017, removed Iraq from the list of affected countries and included more exemptions. Despite these changes, parts of the revised order were also blocked by federal courts, including a notable injunction from a judge in Hawaii.
The legal battle culminated in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Hawaii. In 2018, the Court upheld a third version of the ban, ruling that it fell within the president’s authority to regulate immigration and did not violate the Establishment Clause. While the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Trump administration, it faced a narrowed Muslim Ban made so by the many lawsuits Muslim Americans filed to challenge it.
Using RLUIPA in Prisons and for Land Use
Incarcerated Muslims across the country are forced to remove their hijabs (religiously mandated head coverings) and shave their beards, often under the guise of security concerns. Muslims have argued in court that such restrictions are a substantial burden that deprives them of the right to freely exercise their religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
In the first RLUIPA case to come before the Supreme Court, a Muslim man successfully argued for a fulsome interpretation of RLUIPA’s religious liberty protections. This interpretation ended beard bans at prisons and jails across the country.
RLUIPA allows the government only to apply the substantial burdens that a dress code imposes on religious exercise if it furthers a compelling government interest and does so in the least restrictive means. The issue of beards has arrived at the Supreme Court, but Muslim women are bringing cases to protect their right to wear a hijab in prisons and jails and to not be photographed during the booking process without one. Notable hijab removal cases have largely resulted in settlement agreements, including a multi-million-dollar settlement reached between Muslim women representing a class of plaintiffs and the New York City Police Department.
Muslim communities also face challenges related to land use, such as building mosques or community centers. These challenges often involve local zoning laws that can be used to prevent the construction of religious buildings. As with the dress code regulations discussed above, RLUIPA is a powerful statutory tool for challenging restrictive zoning laws and permitting Muslim communities to build mosques and Islamic schools. Muslim litigants argue that the denials by municipalities impose a substantial burden on religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest. And they generally succeed.
The U.S. Department of Justice has been particularly active in enforcing RLUIPA in cases including Norwalk, Connecticut; Bridgewater, New Jersey; Des Plaines, Illinois; and Culpeper, Virginia. Most of these challenges have resulted in settlements because local and state entities defending themselves against RLUIPA claims brought by Muslims have faired poorly.
Conclusion
Muslim Americans are using the courts more and more to defend their rights. The three areas of litigation discussed above show how.