Margulies, Peter

English

HELIN Digital Commons

The Fourth Circuit and the Refugee EO: Establishing Confusion

DOCS@RWU

Roger Williams UniversityDOCS@RWULaw Faculty Scholarship Law Faculty Scholarship5-26-2017The Fourth Circuit and the Refugee EO:Establishing ConfusionPeter MarguliesRoger Williams University School of Law, pmargulies@rwu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fsPart of the Immigration Law Commons, and the President/Executive Department CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Scholarship at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in LawFaculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact mwu@rwu.edu.Recommended CitationPeter Margulies, The Fourth Circuit and the Refugee EO: Establishing Confusion, Lawfare (May 26, 2017, 1:15PM),https://www.lawfareblog.com/fourth-circuit-and-refugee-eo-establishing-confusionDONALD TRUMPThe Fourth Circuit and the Refugee EO: Establishing ConfusionBy Peter Margulies  Friday, May 26, 2017, 1:15 PMThe Establishment Clause took center stage in Monday’s 10-3 Fourth Circuit decision in International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v.Trump upholding a Maryland district court’s  preliminary injunction against President Trump’s revised Refugee EO. In holding that therevised EO violated the Establishment Clause, Chief Judge Gregory’s majority opinion was not satis½ed with applying one legal test. Thecourt needed two tests to explain its reasoning. However, while the court’s explanation of its holding was complicated, the driving force wasobvious: cherry-picking the campaign, post-election, and post-inaugural utterances of Donald Trump to make out a case for anti-Muslimanimus. Unfortunately, that approach will not produce clear guidance on the contours of the Establishment Clause in foreign policy.Application of the Establishment Clause to national security and foreign policy is a risky undertaking, because of the multitude of variablesthat drive government action in these dynamic domains. (See Josh Blackman’s post here.) The Establishment Clause prohibits governmentactions intended to and likely to produce injury or aid to religion. Sorting out religious from neutral factors is a dif½cult task. Consider asalient event in post-World War II U.S. foreign policy: President Truman’s recognition of Israel. Truman expressly recognized the creation ofa “Jewish state” within Israel’s borders. Clark Clifford, Truman’s close advisor and future Secretary of Defense under LBJ, recalled thatTruman was fond of quoting Deuteronomy 1:8, which quotes God as commanding the Israelites to “go in and possess the land [of] …Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Since one of Truman’s demonstrable motives was a desire to help Judaism survive and prosper, was Truman’sdecision infected with an improper religious purpose?Even (or perhaps especially) if one grants that President Truman’s handle on the Bible was surer than President Trump’s, this questionshould answer itself. A complex matter like recognition of a state entails a range of motivations. Isolating the religious motivation andinvalidating the action taken would be a sure path to paralysis in foreign policy. Madison, who in Federalist No. 41 counseled vigilanceregarding the hostile “exertions” of foreign powers, would be aghast. (This is just an illustration; the President may have plenary Article IIpower over recognition decisions, although the Establishment Clause might restrict this authority, just as the Fourth Circuit found in IRAPthat this clause restricted the political branches’ authority over noncitizens with no ties to the United States.)The Supreme Court took a sensible approach to these fraught issues in Salazar v. Buono (2010). The Court found that a blatantly religioussymbol—a cross—was almost certainly intended by Congress not as a promotion of religion but as a commemoration of Americans killed inWorld War I. The Court viewed the complex matters of war and peace addressed by the political branches of the federal government as eonsremoved from the state and local religious displays that dominate the Establishment Clause docket.The Fourth Circuit’s approach in IRAP v. Trump rejects this common-sense approach. Instead, the court aggregates two tests. One test is the“facially legitimate and bona ½de” immigration test established by the Supreme Court in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) and recently applied byJustice Kennedy in his concurrence in 2015’s Kerry v. Din (2015). The other test is from the Establishment Clause chestnut, Lemon v.Kurtzman (1971). Under that approach, for the state to prevail, a court must ½nd a “secular purpose,” a “primary effect [of the challengedaction] that neither advances nor inhibits religion” and the absence of a tendency to “foster excessive state entanglement with religion.”The Fourth Circuit’s approach to the revised EO becomes slippery in the awkward transition from Din to Lemon.The Fourth Circuit majority construes the Mandel/Din test as requiring proof that a challenged government action is both, 1) “faciallylegitimate,” and, 2) “bona ½de” (i.e., as re¾ecting good faith throughout, not merely on the face of a document or action). The good faith velnon of a government action is clearly crucial. If a plaintiff makes what Justice Kennedy in Din called an “af½rmative showing of bad faith,”the court can conduct a “more searching judicial review.” For the Fourth Circuit majority, that more searching review is teed up when thegovernment’s good faith is “seriously called into question.”Asking whether the government’s good faith has been “seriously called into question” sounds like a high threshold for more intrusivejudicial review—until it isn’t. Consider Congress’s exaltation of crosses in Salazar v. Buono (2010), or President Truman’s fervent invocationof Deuteronomy as he recognized Israel. Surely, each prompts “serious questions” about the role of of½cial intent to aid religion. And that’sthe rub. Cherry-pick Congress’s favorable comments about crosses or Truman’s citations to Deuteronomy and—presto!—“serious questions”proliferate. At that point, any decision by the political branches on matters of foreign policy is subject to the vagaries of the Lemon test,which the Supreme Court often ignores, even in more routine Establishment Clause cases. As Fourth Circuit judges Niemeyer, Shedd, andAgee noted in dissent, the majority’s approach is “unworkable and inappropriate.” Justice Jackson, who championed a “workablegovernment” in his canonical Youngstown concurrence, would share Madison’s puzzlement at the peculiar turn the Fourth Circuit has taken.However, the Fourth Circuit majority is right and the dissenters are wrong about one key issue: purpose should matter. Indeed, Jeffrey Wall,who as Acting Solicitor General argued the government’s case, appeared to concede at one point that a sliding scale might best regulate therelationship between a measure’s putative neutral objectives and the statements that illuminate the motives behind the measure. A palpablyimpermissible purpose, measured by the intensity, uniformity, and duration of a politician’s statements (even campaign utterances), shouldtrigger more searching review. Suppose that President Truman, the second Baptist president, had taken to convening a daily Orthodoxminyan in the Oval Of½ce, pressing prayer shawls and yarmulkes on Clark Clifford, Secretary of State George C. Marshall, and the President’smany other advisors. General Marshall may not have been amused (he opposed recognition of Israel in the ½rst place) and Truman’shypothetical display of Jewish devotion may have triggered more robust investigation of recognition’s secular aims (having an ally in theMiddle East, etc.).Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit’s “serious question” test, as applied by Judge Gregory, ½nds an impermissible purpose based on far moreambiguous evidence. Take the explanation of the ½rst refugee EO by Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. According to Giuliani, Trump tasked himto  “[p]ut a commission together … [and] show me the right way to do it legally” (emphasis added). Judge Gregory, at page 51 in his opinion,describes Giuliani as recalling that President Trump wanted “to ½nd a way to ban Muslims in a legal way,” proving that Trump’s request wasmerely a legal dodge to achieve his desired result of a Muslim ban. Judge Gregory’s paraphrase of Giuliani’s account assumes the very fact incontention: what “it” means.According to Judge Gregory, the answer is obvious. Indeed, the meaning of “it” is so clear that Judge Gregory simply excises that inoffensivepronoun entirely and conveniently substitutes “ban Muslims.” Substituting assumptions for answers is the hallmark of what cognitivepsychologists call “con½rmation bias”: viewing new facts as ½tting into the observer’s preexisting narrative. Most human beings are prone tothis error, including President Trump. Judges aren’t immune, either, but they should acknowledge this frailty, not succumb to it. Instead, theFourth Circuit’s “serious question” test invites judges to double down on their own predilections.Judge Gregory’s leap to the conclusion that “it” means a “Muslim ban” is surely one inference, but it’s not the only one. The “it” in Giuliani’sexplanation could also refer to pausing certain immigration temporarily, in order to assess whether the United States’ current criteria forscreening immigrants actually work. Pending an answer to this key question, it’s not inherently invidious to temporarily suspendimmigration from countries riven by terrorism and armed con¾ict (like ½ve countries on the EO list: Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, andYemen) or a state that sponsors terrorism (Iran, the sixth country on the list). The revised EO’s method is unnecessary and unwise, in myview. However, courts have never viewed a foreign policy measure’s lack of wisdom as dispositive evidence of its illegality. For the sake ofboth the political branches and the judiciary, the statements of President Trump shouldn’t tempt judges to go down this road.Con½rmation bias is also at work in the Fourth Circuit’s citation to President Trump’s description of the revised EO as a “watered-downversion” of the original order. As I noted in an earlier post, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the phrase “watered-down” asconnoting a material change. The Fourth Circuit majority could have followed the Supreme Court’s guidance. That might have led them toacknowledge that the revised EO is substantially different from the original order and “tailored” (to use President Trump’s term) to theNinth Circuit’s decision on the original EO. After all, the revised EO exempts lawful permanent residents and current visa-holders, who havethe strongest claims among noncitizens for protection from broader restrictions on entry into the United States. Unfortunately, the FourthCircuit opted to substitute con½rmation bias for reasoned inquiry. Viewed through the prism of a narrative that assumes invidious bias, thephrase “watered down” no longer means “material alteration.” Instead, it magically assumes the attributes of a “super½cial tweak,”reinforcing the Fourth Circuit’s holding that the revised EO inherited the ¾aws of the original.Viewed in this light, the Fourth Circuit’s cherry-picking of Trump’s utterances is not salutary pushback against his administration’sexcesses, but yet another example of collateral damage. George Orwell noted more than seventy years ago, in his classic essay Politics and theEnglish Language, that politicians view language as in½nitely malleable to suit their own agendas. President Trump lacks clean hands in thispursuit. But judges who reciprocate do not improve the situation.The difference between the aims of the revised EO asserted by the Trump administration and the assumptions made by the Fourth Circuithighlight a ¾aw with a statutory argument made in a concurrence by Judge Wynn. This argument (also made by Neal Katyal for Hawaii in theNinth Circuit case argued last week and by veteran Supreme Court advocate Andrew Pincus in an amicus brief for technology ½rms) goes asfollows: the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) includes a long list of grounds for inadmissibility based on terrorism, enumerated at 8U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B). Judge Wynn asserts in his concurrence that the logic of these enumerated grounds precludes presidential action beyondthe ordinary realm of visa processing.This argument from statutory structure is misconceived, because it fails to acknowledge that the revised EO does not seek to supplant thegrounds for lawful status and inadmissibility set out in the INA. Rather, the revised EO only seeks to ensure that the U.S. is collecting andanalyzing data correctly to determine whether noncitizens abroad meet statutory criteria. Viewed in this light, the revised EO is aninterstitial, gap-½lling measure, not a substantive change in the statute. A longer pause, or a series of consecutive pauses, would raise red¾ags about material changes in the INA. Only Congress can make such changes. However, the temporary pause outlined in the revised EOdoes not rise to that level.In sum, the Fourth Circuit’s decision doubles down on the dubious practice of cherry-picking Donald Trump’s campaign utterances andsubsequent statements. My hope is that the Ninth Circuit panel that heard a related appeal last week (see my post here) will offer analternative approach that allows some room to assess purpose, but also safeguards against the blandishments of con½rmation bias. In anycase, the Supreme Court is waiting in the wings.Topics: Donald Trump, Executive PowerTags: immigration, refugees, Executive Order, Establishment ClausePeter Margulies is a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, where he teaches Immigration Law, NationalSecurity Law and Professional Responsibility. He is the author of Law’s Detour: Justice Displaced in the BushAdministration (New York: NYU Press, 2010).

https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&amp;context=law_fac_fs

The Fourth Circuit and the Refugee EO: Establishing Confusion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

HELIN Digital Commons

DOCS@RWU

HELIN Digital Commons