Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Trump, Anti-Muslim Rhetoric, and the Supreme Court


Last week, I had the pleasure of being a guest on the Good Law Bad Law podcast where I addressed the broader social and political implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii.  I spoke with Aaron Freiwald, the host of Good Law Bad Law, on how Trump's Islamophobic rhetoric during his presidential campaign informs the real intentions behind the travel ban, also known as the Muslim Ban.  The podcast can be accessed on YouTube here and online here.


Good Law Bad Law


In my article A Muslim Registry: The Precursor to Internment?, I argued why such rhetoric, referred to as extrinsic evidence, should be reviewed in the Court's assessment of whether Trump's anti-Muslim animus motivated the travel ban.

Being political scapegoats in the indefinite ‘war on terror’ is the new normal for Muslims in America. With each federal election cycle or terrorist attack in a Western country comes a spike in Islamophobia. Candidates peddle tropes of Muslims as terrorists in campaign materials and political speeches to solicit votes. Government officials call for bold measures – extreme vetting, bans, and mass deportations – to regulate and exclude Muslim bodies from U.S. soil.

The racial subtext is that Muslims in the United States are outsiders who do not belong to the political community. A case in point is the “Muslim Ban” issued by the Trump administration in 2017.   The article goes on to examine the legality of the Muslim Registry that Trump called for during his campaign, but instead opted for a partial Muslim travel ban--for now at least.




| Permalink


Post a comment