The United States Supreme CourtвЂ™s Muslim ban decision in Trump v. The Article proposes a more inclusive framework that imposes duties on the state to non-citizens through connections of the family and universal values. This project entails challenging the current legal rights frameworkвЂ™s underlying ideas of American identity, which privileges national sovereignty and citizenship. The Article then examines extra-judicial forms of advocacy that groups and individuals may adopt in order to secure and develop marginalized groups membersвЂ™ liberties. Recognizing the at-times life-saving and moral necessity of litigation, this article first offers discrete litigation strategies that may avoid future adverse decisions. In light of The Muslim Ban Case and the judiciaryвЂ™s conservative trajectory, this Article proposes that civil-rights lawyers and legal advocacy organizations assess whether their litigation risks validating the PresidentвЂ™s arrogation of power and the concomitant suppression of minority groupsвЂ™ liberties. The Article provides a typology of these casesвЂ™ features and examines how The Muslim Ban Case exhibits these same characteristics but also exceeds recent precedents in its disregard of the banвЂ™s bigoted motivations and its excessive deference to the President.

This article maintains that The Muslim Ban Case was a predictable outgrowth of the Supreme CourtвЂ™s national security-immigration jurisprudence that champions executive power at the expense of marginalized groups, in particular non-citizens. Litigants and advocacy organizations should employ an array of strategies and tactics to avoid the CourtвЂ™s rulings that almost uniformly defer to, and thus validate, the governmentвЂ™s national security and immigration practices. governmentвЂ™s injurious national security and immigration policies. Hawaii calls into question the civil rights litigation enterprise insofar as lawsuits challenge the U.S. The Supreme CourtвЂ™s Muslim ban decision in Trump v.

Barbara mellix from outside in citation