Document Type


Publication Title

Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal

Publication Date


Date Added



Since there is a great deal of evidence supporting the position that President Trump’s travel bans were intended to send the message that the United States had adopted a new policy of discouraging Muslims from coming to America due to their religion, these bans violate the Establishment Clause because the President’s anti-Muslim by executive order policy is merely incidentally related to national security. Since there is no legitimate security rationale for the Trump travel bans, they can only be reasonably explained as a demonstration of open hostility toward Muslims. This article in part II will include a discussion of the widespread public perception that President Trump’s first travel ban which he issued on January 27, 2017, was targeted at Muslims because of their religion and not about promoting national security. President Trump defended his travel bans as not targeting Muslims because of their religion because the travel bans were about keeping America safe. Part III provides an analysis of the Trump Travel Ban Establishment Clause issue presented in Hawaii v. Trump. The conclusion in part IV agrees with the position that the Court in Trump v. Hawaii failed to hold the executive branch of government accountable for rejecting the First Amendment promise of religious neutrality and tolerance. It should be settled precedent by now that an apparent hostile executive order that allegedly targets Muslims because of their religion under the Establishment Clause must at a minimum meet a standard higher than the rational basis test.

First Page



First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Travel Ban


Civil Rights and Discrimination | Constitutional Law