Attorneys representing the administration ofPresident Donald Trump already have their hands fullespecially after the Ninth Circuit on Thursday unanimously rejectedthe Justice Departments request to reinstate the Muslim Ban. But that isnt the only legal challenge looming for DOJ attorneys tasked with defending the presidents sweeping order.

The American Civil Liberties Unionon Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit contending that the presidents executive order violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendments prohibition of a government establishment of religion.RDspoke with ACLU senior staff attorney Heather Weaver to better understandwhat makes this lawsuit different from the others already challenging the policy.

Weaver says the executive orders targeting of Muslims is so blatant that its nearly unprecedented. While the textneitherincludes Trumps pet phrase, radical Islamic terrorism, northe words Islam or Muslim, it doesnt have to. The administration constructed the terms of the executive order to disproportionately impact Muslim immigrants and refugees, Weaver explains.

The executive order is religiously gerrymandered to target Muslims, shesays. It most directly harms Muslim-Americans who were born or have family in any of the seven nations from which U.S. entry is now prohibited under the presidents order. Most of theindividual plaintiffs fall into this category, while others are naturalized American citizens or permanent residents who had permission to travel or approved family visas from one of the seven countries targeted. The actual harm facing these plaintiffs is particularly acute,the ACLUs suit contends.

In policy and practice,the executive order essentially conditions immigration decisions and benefits on an immigrants faith, Weaver explains.Its limiting [rights available to Muslim Americans and immigrants]because of their faith, and we would say that that is a burden on their faith, she says. Because essentially what it boils down to is: its pressuring them to abandon their faith so that they may obtain the benefits that theyre seeking.

Whether its refugee status, or a green card, or some sort of other adjustment to their status, the order limits the relief an individual or family can access based on their religion, Weaver says. Thats what the burden is here, and of course under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, if youre going to impose that type of burden on somebodys religious exercise, you have to have a compelling reason to do it, and it has to bethe least restrictive means. Thats a very high standard for the government to meet, as weve seen in some cases. And I think the government hasnt met that standard here, and I dont think they can meet that standard.

The ACLUs complaint methodically documents the historical context leading up to the orders implementation, including the numerous times then-candidate Trump stated his desireto ban Muslims from entering the U.S., and his recent on-camera admission that the order was intended to privilege Christians.

The federal government is essentially sending a message, not only that Islam and Muslims are disfavored, but its suggesting that theyre evil, or wish to do others harm, says Weaver.So whatever the message that the executive order conveys is, that is informed by everything that has led up to that executive order.

But thats not the only religious freedom complaint advanced in the suit, filed February 7th in U.S. District Courtof Maryland. Among the plaintiffs aretwo faith-based organizations that work to resettle and supportrefugees, allowing these plaintiffs toclaim a unique injury: that the order substantially burdens the free religious exercise of these U.S.-based nonprofits, which consider the work they do an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and Jewish international refugee resettlement organization (HIAS) both contend that the executive order prevents them from living out their faith on several frontsa pointed, if indirect, rebuke to the administrations purported advocacy of religious freedom for all.

The order betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of religious freedom as it functions in American society, Weaver says. She points to the multilayered irony that during the campaign Vice President Mike Pence condemned Trumps proposed ban on Muslims, and has his own reputation of using religious freedomas an excusefor state-sanctioned anti-LGBT discrimination.

According tothe ACLU, religious freedom does not include the ability to harm others, says Weaver.And thats an important line to draw in this sand, and I think that thats a boundary thats been missing from Vice President Pences understanding of religious liberty. Its religious freedom for me but not for thee.'

Weaver says this fundamentalmisunderstanding appears to begenuine, but that doesnt absolve the nations most powerful politicians from being held responsible for the harm done by this limited perspective.

When thats your understanding of religious freedom, you dont necessarily see it as hypocritical to be voted into office on that platform, and then one of your first acts is to target a religious minority, says Weaver. It is hypocriticalbut I dont that they think its hypocritical, to be clear.

See the rest here:

ACLU's Religious Freedom Suit Against Trump Order: Gerrymandered to Target Muslims - Religion Dispatches