University of St. Thomas School of Law professor Tom Berg joined amicus briefs in the Fourth and Ninth circuits to oppose the Trump Administration’s travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, citing the Establishment, Free Exercise and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit governmental action based on animus toward religions.

Berg is among a diverse group of leading constitutional law and religious liberty scholars who signed onto the briefs. Although the scholars hold varying views concerning the First Amendment’s religion clauses, they agree on the nature of President Donald Trump’s constitutional violation. They argue that evidence of anti-Muslim animus – including but not limited to campaign statements – is “overwhelming” in this case, and they also contend that the order is unlawful even if animus was not its sole motive.

The brief concludes, in part: “One of America’s foundational principles is to welcome people of all faiths and to reject religious intolerance. Issuing an order to keep Muslims out is inconsistent with that principle as expressed through the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Nor can the President’s order be saved by a pretextual, after-the-fact appeal to national security. Respectfully, this Court should not abide an order widely—and correctly—understood to flow from anti-Islamic animus.”

Berg is the James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy at St. Thomas Law and director of the school’s Religious Liberty Clinic. Professor Virgil Wiebe, Robins Kaplan Director of Clinical Education at St. Thomas Law, also has taken a public stance against the travel ban.

Print Friendly