Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

Mira Diamond-Berman

Preston Beatty
Uma Gupta
Joe Byler

Focus Questions/Notes:

1) Whether the proclamation is a ​lawful​ exercise of the president’s authority to suspend

entry of aliens abroad

a) History of case and Trumps Proclamations

i) this is Trump’s memo explaining his travel ban ​proclamation​, which is

what is being tried in court. Originally EO- 1 and EO- 2 (detailed in the

link below under case history) were being tried in lower courts. Section b

(a) and Section b (b) were granted stay, meaning that the court allowed

those sections to go into effect. ​(The White House)

ii) There were to executive orders (Oyez)

iii) Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument on latest version of

september 24 travel ban ( this includes the proclamation made recently

regarding EO-2) ​(Supreme Court)​.

2) Whether the proclamation ​violates the establishment clause​ of the Constitution (First


a) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

government for a redress of grievances” (​"First Amendment"​)

Protecting American lives
*Protecting American lives and Democracy*

Legal Theory:

President Trump is within his realm of legal and constitutional rights in passing Executive order

13780 because it does not violate the establishment clause, and he is granted authority to pass

such a law under acts of congress and in keeping with past precedent.

*The lower court's decision to ignore the legal precedent of the higher courts and to interpret

what President Trump’s intentions were in signing the executive order both sets a dangerous

precedent as to what the lower courts have the power to declare when in opposition to the higher

courts and also would allow for the courts to legally interpret what a politician’s intentions were

in passing a bill, which would upset the balance of powers and radically change our democracy.*

Opening: Mira (4-5 minutes


I. Paragraph one (30 seconds)-- sell Jury on theme

The United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. But how can

Americans be free if the lives of innocent Americans are not protected, if malicious acts of terror

threaten the lives of Americans everyday? However, we are fortunate enough to have a President

who is determined to protect Americans.

II. Introduce client--

Jury, I want you to meet President Donald J. Trump. The leader of the United States of America,

elected by the people. On September 24, 2017 President Donald Trump signed executive order

13780 (also known as the travel ban), which suspended entry for 90 days of foreigners from 7

countries identified as having high terrorist risks by Congress and the Executive (Oyez).
III. 3-4 Paragraphs on story of case (NO ARGUMENTS--must maintain credibility)

(introduce witnesses here)

But Hawaii refuses follow the President’s orders to protect the lives of the innocent. Hawaii

took the travel ban to court and the district judge put the order on hold. The federal government

appealed the ruling to the ninth circuit court of appeals. The order is allowed to be in effect while

the government appeals, put it gives the order a huge exception. The federal government went to

the Supreme Court to get the full order into effect to fully protect innocent American lives


To further prove the Jury, the court brings in John Kelly- White House Chief of Staff and

Trump’s previous Secretary of Homeland security, James Mattis US Secretary of Defense…

Introduce witnesses…

IV. Give an overview of laws that will apply (LEGAL THEORY)

The executive order is both constitutional and has no religion basis. It is very much legal for the

president to pass executive orders and past precedents set during Jimmy Carter’s administration

that give the president the authority to implement executive orders to protect American lives.

The ​Kleindienst v. Mandel ruling and Kerry v. Din ruling both set the precedent that Trump’s

executive order is legally permissible and constitutional.

This order in no way violates the establishment clause in the first Amendment the prohibits the

establishment of religion by Congress.

This is not a muslim ban. All the countries being banned are not Muslim! In fact some of the

countries are only 13% muslim. North Korea and Venezuela are included in the ban and neither

have large muslim populations. It’s not even a ban. The executive order is simply suspending
citizens from the countries that give a high risk for american terror threats. The citizens are only

suspended for 90 or 120 days, so the US can further investigate them to make sure that they will

not risk innocent American lives (Presidential).

In addition to all of this the lower court’s decision also sets a dangerous precedent. The lower

courts were interpreting Donald Trump’s intent in passing the ban. The courts cannot be allowed

to determine whether someone intended to violate the constitution. If so, any President’s decision

to do almost anything could be ruled as unconstitutional by a judge of the opposing party who

believes the President intended to violate the constitution. Every executive order could be struck

down by any judge who simply dislikes the law. The precedent that would be set by ruling in the

defendants favor disrupts the balance of power between the branches of government and would

essentially give the judiciary the unchecked power to stop any action the executive branch makes

based off of a feeling that the executive branch had an intent to violate the constitution.

V. Last paragraph must circle back to theme and end with call to action

This is nothing more than protecting innocent American lives. Jury, my council will ask you to

return to a verdict of President Trump’s authority to continue the full effect of the executive

order to protect the lives on innocent Americans.

Opening: Hawaii

Plaintiff Witnesses:

Direct Doris Meissner (Teddy): Mira

Jury, I present Doris Meissner as an expert witness. I will be questioning her to help clarify the

language, content, and impact of Executive Order 13780

Can you please give us some of your credentials and explain your area of expertise?

I have been involved with the national government for 45 years, first with the Department of

Justice, including being the Executive Director on the Cabinet Committee on Illegal Aliens.

Under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, I was the Commissioner of US Immigration and

Naturalization Services, and am now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, where my

main focus is on administering the nation’s immigration laws, systems, and agencies, as well as

immigration enforcement, border patrol, and cooperation with other countries (MPI).

Can you give us a ​summary of Executive Order 13780?

So first, what this order does, is clearly express that it was made to protect Americans from terror

attacks, ones done by foreigners in particular. In order to do this, the first main point is made that

a 90-day suspension of entry from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya,

Sudan, North Korea, and Venezuela, chosen because of their growing presence as potentially

dangerous countries. Next is the 120 day suspension of the refugee protection organization

USRAP, because terrorist organizations have been known for infiltrating other countries through

refugee programs. Additionally, the entry of certain foreign nationals is also being suspended so

a thorough background process can be conducted. However, to ease the work of intelligence

agencies, foreign nationals must submit a report on their history and other relevant information

required, and will be allowed into the country once they submit those briefs. These nationals are

also denied entry if they do not follow certain specific regulations, such as having a valid visa on

the date of this order or were outside the country during on the date of the order. However, they

will be allowed entry if they are a citizen or hold dual citizenship, if they have been granted
asylum, or if they are a diplomat. Finally, one of the biggest parts of this order is implementing a

stronger uniform screening and vetting platform for all immigration services. This includes a

number of things, such as a entry-exit tracking service for suspects in terrorist cases, and other

visa-security related programs (Executive).

Are there any exceptions to the temporary 90 day holding period?

Yes. The temporary 90-day pause is subject to individualizes waivers (Executive).

And how would someone qualify for an individualized waiver?

Well, qualification is determined case-by-case. Cases with infants or very young children, or

those in urgent need of medical attention will be allowed in. If they are employed in the U.S. or

by the U.S. government, if they have significant contacts who vouch for their safety, or if they

wish to live with their spouse who is currently living within the U.S. Finally, if they a

government sponsored exchange visitor, they will be able to apply for an individualized waiver

for entry to the United States (Executive).

Using your expertise and research, can you tell us what the Executive order aims to do?

This executive order was made for the sole purpose of protecting innocent American lives. In the

broadest sense, this order is giving the president the authority to suspend the entry of

non-citizens who pose a real threat to American lives (Meissner).

What effects does your research show this Executive Order will have?

With my colleague Sarah Pierce, we took apart Trump’s several executive orders involving the

Executive Order for an Issue Brief and analyzed them provision by provision, policy by policy.

We have checked that everything follows the codes and regulations that we have become
familiar with through education, experience, and research, and have published our examinations

for the Migration Policy Institute. We found that there are numerous examples of positive change

that will come from the creation of this bill. The implementation of a database updated with the

convictions and crimes committed by foreign individuals in our country using similar technology

to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This is a very effective system and is expected

to help aid in calculating the long-term costs for U.S. refugee resettlement. Additionally, the

uniform screening standards that are implemented are expected to identify all potential criminals

before allowing them to enter, and will record their data to be referred to higher level intelligence

and law enforcement agencies (Meissner).

Is this Executive Order the only one of its kind?

No, this is not the first time in which a president has done this. President Jimmy Carter made

executive order 12172, which held and denied non-immigrant visas from Iran (Jimmy). On the

opposite side, presidents Reagan, Bush, and Obama have all created some form of executive

order to exempt millions of undocumented immigrants already living within the country. Carter

and Obama received quite a bit of backlash, the same as President Trump has, but all are

expressing their constitutional right to executive order.

Some parts of this ban, such as the exemption of lawful citizens from re-entering the country,

had to be modified because of section 212(f) of Article II. It’s quite give and take with some of
the policy, which is why several versions of this Executive Order were released before the final

was decided.

Cross: ​Hawaii

Direct John Malcolm (Lucas) : Uma

Jury I present John Malcolm as an expert witness. I will be questioning the witness to establish

whether or not Executive Order 13780 is a lawful establishment of President Trump’s power.

What is your current profession?

I am the Vice President of the Institution for Constitutional Government, and I am the Director

of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies.

What is your education and previous profession?

I am a graduate of Harvard Law School and I hold a bachelor’s degree in economics from

Columbia College. I served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s

Criminal Division for four years.

Is Executive Order 13780 a legal exercise of President Trump’s authority?

Yes. It is legal under the U.S. Code.

Are you familiar with U.S. Code 1182?

Yes, I am.

What is the purpose of the law?

So U.S. Code 1182 for inadmissible aliens serves the purpose to grant the President of the United

States the authority to, and I quote, “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens’ ‘for
such period as he shall deem necessary, when he’ ‘finds that the entry of any aliens or of any

class of aliens … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

For those of us who haven't attended Harvard, would you mind explaining?

To put it simply, the President of the United States has the authority, under the U.S. code, to

prohibit the entry of immigrants if he deems it necessary for the protection of the United States.

How does this law relate to the actions President Trump has taken?

In this specific case for President Trump, he has exercised this authority granted to him, by

Congress, in order to ban for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals from six countries that were

“designated as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks.” Several Presidents in the past, such

as Jimmy Carter and George Bush, have exercised this authority.

Direct John Kelly (Jake Suh): Joe

Can you please introduce yourself to to the judges?

I am John Francis Kelly, the current White House Chief of Staff.

Can you explain your past work in the military and/or government?

I was enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970 and have served in the military for nearly five
decades in positions including chief of Southern Command, senior assistant to the secretary of
defense and legislative liaison to Congress, and I have also served tours in both Iraq and
Afghanistan (Kopan). Just recently, I was secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.

How severe of a threat has terrorism become on America?

It's everywhere. It's constant. It's nonstop. There are incredible terrorist plots against the United
States. The good news for us in America, is that we have amazing people protecting us every
day. But it can happen here almost anytime, we have to understand that every single day there
are people plotting to try and hurt us. And to beat these people, we as a government, as a
military, must be perfect. But if to put it in perspective, if you knew, what I know about
terrorism, you wouldn’t leave the house ​(Kelly [05:26])​.

How were you involved in the process of writing Executive Order 13780?

I, along with Attorney General Jefferson Sessions submitted a letter to President Trump detailing
how weaknesses in our immigration system compromise our nation’s security and
recommending a temporary pause on entry of nationals from the designated countries.

What does Executive Order 13780 ensure for American safety?

With the exception of Iraq, generally speaking we don’t have embassies in those countries, 3 of
the 6 are now are designated as terrorist supporters by the State Department, and most of them
are countries in collapse (Kelly [02:54]). Because we cannot deem the information provided by
these countries reliable to vet, this pause ensures that the likes of terrorists do not set foot on
American soil.

Cross: ​Hawaii

Direct James Mattis (Alex): Preston

Jury I present James Mattis. I will be questioning the witness to establish the reasoning behind

the inclusion of certain countries in Executive Order 13780.

What is your current job in the Trump administration?

I am the secretary of Defense for this current administration and am therefore a member of

President Trump’s cabinet

Can you tell us about your background in national security?

I commanded the many levels of the Marines for over four decades, including combat tours in

Iraq and Afghanistan. I served as the head of central command under president Obama. I was as

a visiting fellow at the Hoover institute at Stanford and specialized in leadership, national

security, and the effective use of military force


What was your past work in the military​?

I started in the United States Marines when I was 18 years old, I was promoted to the rank of

second lieutenant in 1972. I served as a platoon commander. During the gulf war I was promoted

to lieutenant colonel I commanded the first battalion, during Afghanistan I commanded the 7th

marine regiment, during Iraq I commanded the 1st marine division, I also commanded the marine

corps combat development command. (​

Can you repeat for us which countries are addressed in Executive Order 13780?

Chad, Lybia, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, Venezuala

Are all of these countries of a Muslim majority?

No, they are not. “North Korea, and Venezuala” are mentioned in the ban and are of “Buddhist,

and protestant” majorities (​Pariona 1).

How were these countries selected?

Trump determined which countries to include based on the fact that the terror rate in countries in

the OCED was the highest in the world in 2016. Based on the global terror index, Syria has the

4th highest rate of terror in the world, Yemen has the 6th, Lybia has the 10th, Sudan has the

18th. All the countries listed in this Executive order are very high on this index, and were
selected by Trump because they pose a very real threat to American lives


The countries on the list are also home to several terrorist organizations, that have made

threats, or carried out acts of terror in the past. These groups include Boko Haram, Al Queda,

and most recently ISIS. ISIS has a very strong presence in the countries the Mr. Trump included,

with hundreds of reported troops in Yemen, Lybia, Syria, and most others on the list.

(​ ​ISIS has already claimed to send refugees into the united states and

europe to carry out vicious acts of terror against our own citizens. Trump has an obligation as

president to keep the American people safe, and this act does just that. It is Donald Trump taking

precautionary measures in order to save the lives of our people. It is imperative that we defend

ourselves from terror attacks before they happen, and it is vital that we protect American lives.

Did Trump select the countries listed in Executive order 13780 because they were mostly


He did not. As I have said Executive order 13780 is not limited to muslim countries. The

countries selected have an extremely high score on the global terror Index

(​ ​Mr. Trump selected the countries based upon the sheer amount of

terrorist activity based in the countries. He imposed this ban because these countries have the

greatest potential to do us harm.

It wasn’t based on religion, as Mr.Trump selected other countries such as North Korea. It was

simply a ban meant to protect the citizens of the United States of America from harm. There was

no religious ban in fact the only thing that implies a ban based on religion is the speculation of

Cross: ​Hawaii

Direct John Taylor (Silas): Joe

What is your current occupation and what is your connection to the case?

I am John Taylor, I am a law professor at West Virginia University. I specialize in first

amendment rights, and I’m focusing on whether or not the travel ban qualifies as a violation of

the establishment clause. I have spoken on public radio and other media outlets regarding

Trump’s executive order and its effect on the nations included in the ban.

What is the establishment clause as stated in the first amendment?

Formally, the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress.

Essentially, it forbids religious discrimination and most importantly prevents withholding the

basic rights we are entitled to regardless of religion.

How does Executive Order 13780 relate to the establishment clause?

Although denying entry into the country on the basis of religion would likely violate the

establishment clause, as I understand it, Trump’s intent was not to discriminate against any

religious group nor was one religion the blatant target of the ban. The set of criteria established

in the 1968 Lemon vs. Kurtzman case for determining whether a law violates the establishment

clause states that the law’s primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits on

religion. Trump’s travel ban passes the so-called Lemon Test, given that it was not an attempt to

foster any government entanglement with religion nor was it racially discriminatory. So I would
have to say Trump’s actions were constitutional as no First amendment rights were infringed


Describe how the travel ban did not discriminate against Muslims.

Clearly not every Muslim in the world is an extremist who will commit terrorist attacks, and

along these lines, President Donald Trump’s travel ban does not directly target Muslims. If the

ban was created only to prevent the entry of Muslims into our nation, then the ban would have

been placed on countries that have more Muslim people. Indonesia, which is not a banned nation,

holds the highest Muslim population in the world. In fact, none (zero) of the seven most highly

populated Muslim countries in the world are included in the ban. Thus one cannot call the ban

racist or religiously discriminatory.

What then was the reasoning behind the ban, if not simply to revoke the rights of Muslim people

to enter our country?

The reason why the ban cannot possibly be violating the rights of Muslims (as designated by the

establishment clause) is that the purpose behind it was protection, not to discriminate against a

religion. Moreover, it is absolutely not the case that the target of President Trump’s ban was the

Islamic faith. Instead, the need was the tendency of specific regions that happen to contain an

Islamic populous, to engage in life-threatening violence. The seven countries in the ban are

plagued by national agitation, whether or not religious belief is behind the violent acts taking

place is besides the point.

Thank you for your thoughtful input. Have you any final arguments to close with or precedents to

Well, I would like to tie in a final point. It has been found in other cases that some government

action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, For example, Engel v. Vitale

outlawed school prayer (praying in class), which had obvious implications on certain

prayer-oriented religions (Islam, even,coincidentally), but was done for the benefit of all

students’ equal opportunity for education.

It is not clear, in this case, just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. So my point being,

that although Muslims may find themselves disproportionately affected by the travel ban, this is

not the intent of the ban, it is for the safety and security of the US as a whole. Trump’s ban may

not be the ideal scenario for all parties, but it is a broad settlement that is still within the

boundaries of the First amendment, while his executive order takes into account the precedence

of national security.

Cross: Hawaii

Direct Donald J. Trump (Will): Uma

Jury, I present Donald J. Trump. I will be questioning the witness to establish his intent behind

the passage of Executive Order 13780

Will you please introduce yourself to the Jury?

Well I’m sure you all know me already but I am Donald J. Trump. I am the president of the

United States of America.

Mr. President, what is your area of expertise?

I am here today to talk to you about the goals of my Executive Order and my intentions in

writing it.

Why did you issue Executive Order 13780?

I passed this Executive Order to protect American lives. That is the only motive and goal behind

this executive order. I want to make America great again, but it has to be safe first. It has to be

safe. As President of the United States, I have passed three executive orders over the past year to

prevent foreign terrorists from killing Americans (Finnegan). I plan on ensuring the protection of

American lives through a better screening process of those entering this country (Bierman).

America, you should not, you will not, have to live in fear. We want to keep out these threats,

these people who are threats to our citizens and our soldiers (CNN).

How did you decide which countries to mention in Executive Order 13780?

I have included countries solely based on the threat they pose to America. There is no other

factor that has gone into deciding which countries are listed in my Executive order. This is a

matter of national security. Nothing else. Our national security comes first. I have chosen the

countries with the highest threat of terrorism, according to my secretary of defense and various

indexes (Global Terrorism Index 2017). Amongst these I have included are Venezuela and North

Korea, and other highly dangerous countries (Cameron). I am also keeping in communication

with these countries. I am trying to work with their governments to reach improved means of
dealing with terror, devise better information sharing, and make it EASIER to safely travel

between our countries (CNN).

What is the relation between these countries?

The ONLY thing that these countries have in common is that they currently pose a threat to our

national security. These countries are all are a danger to America. We need to protect our

country, and our soldiers. We have an absolutely terrific country, and we can’t have terror

endangering american lives.

Cross: Hawaii


Are you islamophobic? What about your twitter? etc...

I have a great relationship with muslims. I visited Saudi Arabia recently, and was greeted with

huge support. Muslims love me and they love this ban, because they know that it is keeping

America safe. The thing is, FDR created concentration camps, Obama created his own travel

ban, but the crooked media refuses to focus on that (CNN). The media wants this to be a

religious thing, but it’s not.

I am the least racist person you have interviewed. People are constantly spreading rumors about

me, and honestly, they don’t bother me because I know they are not sure. I am and very smart

businessman, and I have done huge business deals with Muslims. Muslims love doing business

with me, and I have many Muslims friends who agree with this this ban (CNN).

Direct Shmuel Bar (Lucas): Uma

What is your current job?

I am a senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary

Center Herzliya in Israel. I also have headed over 25 research projects, many for the United

States (“Shmuel Bar”).

What are some of the most prominent terror groups?

Some of the more prominent groups concentrated in the Middle East and Africa include ISIS,

Boko-Haram, Al-Shabab, and Al-Qaeda (Pöhle).

Can you tell us a little bit more about the goal of these groups?

Based on my research, many of these terror organizations look to strike fear into their enemies

and destroy what they call “Western Civilization.” They accomplish this through terrorist attacks

on western countries, warfare in their home countries, and propaganda.

Is America a Western Country?


Should America be protecting its citizens against such terror groups?


Defense Witnesses-- NOT IN THIS ORDER

Cross: Mira ​Batulo Ramadhan (immigrant girl): Easter

A. Was able to enter the US because of the court order blocking the travel ban
B. Is not a US citizen
C. Her father was already living in the US
D. lived in a refugee camp in Kenya
II. What they will probably say
A. She is not a terrorist, but is treated like one
1. COUNTER--With the new travel ban, the waiting period would prove she
is not a terrorist and then she would be able to enter the country
B. This ban separated her family
1. The reason her family was separated was QUESTIONS
C. Ms. Ramadhan, I am very sorry about the hardships you have faced
D. When did your Father arrive in the US?
E. When did you arrive in the US?
F. Are you a citizen of the US?
G. Is your father a citizen of the US?
Cross: Preston ​Sally Yates: Tess
1. For how Long Were You Attorney General
a. When were you attorney general? Can you name a month
i. If she answers correct, bail. If she can’t answer, pursue with further
questions demeaning her credibility
b. Why was your term as attorney general only ten days
i. I made a stand against the Trump Administration for what I believe in
c. Ms. Yates, was your job as Attorney General to make a political grandstand or to
serve as a member of Trump's cabinet
d. Your job is in what Branch of Government
i. Executive
ii. As a member of the executive branch, is your job to determine what laws
are constitutional, or to enforce the law?
iii. If she says enforce, attack the fact that she refused to act because she was
interpreting the law when her job is to enforce it, meaning she did not do
the job she was constitutionally obligated to do. If she answers wrong and
says her job is to help the president determine what laws are
constitutional, pivot and attack based on a lack of knowledge on her part.
e. When did you realize you disagreed with the president?
f. Can you explain to us the events leading up to your resignation?
g. Did you have a discussion with the President regarding your views?
i. If no-- So you did not attempt to change the president’s mind before
h. Was your goal in this endeavor not troubling our conscious by enforcing
something you don’t believe in or making yourself into a partisan martyr. Because
If your goal was simply to not trouble your conscious, why not just resign?
i. What this looks like to me, is someone trying to get their name in the headlines.
Maybe you wanted fame, maybe you wanted to run for office. Whatever the case
may be, the fact that you didn’t just quietly resigned shows you wanted the
attention correct?
j. It appear that your entire purpose for being in the white house in the first place
was to make a name for yourself. You served under Obama and evidently you
disagree with Trump’s policy. And yet you stayed. So answer this question for me
ms. Yates is your position solely based on what would give you the most press
because it sure looks like you would do whatever it takes including being in the
opposite party’s white house administration to gain attention for yourself so is
your position on this issue based entirely on what will get you the most attention?
i. “No that's not why I have my opinion.”
ii. But if the defendants win this case the precedent set would be that the
courts have the power to interpret intent. Your intent in your actions could
be up for question as it sure does look like you may have intended to
violate the constitution by attempting to block the executive branch’s
power to enforce the law. So I ask you, are you aware that the Defendants
winning this case could potentially cause you to be tried for obstruction of
justice for your potential intent to violate the executive branch’s role in
enforcing the law?
Cross: Joe ​Former Attorney General of Hawai’i Doug Chin​: Jason
1. You are planning to run for office correct?
a. If yes, proceed to question two. If no, ask if he is aware of the headlines
saying he is.
2. He’s into conversion therapy and does a lot of anti-gay speech but he fought the
Trump administration to defend transgender rights in the military. He is also a
democrat so he automatically hates Trump?
a. You are a democrat correct?
b. So as a democrat, you do not like President Trump and do not agree with
his policies?
c. But as a democrat you are also a very religious Christian so you are
anti-gay and believe in conversion therapy? As you delivered an anti-gay
speech in 1995 and in 2016 your church had a pray-away-the-gay
d. Hmmm…. You are a democrat and anti-gay very interesting.
e. Do you agree with me that politicians might do things they don’t agree
with just for political attention? For political gain?
f. Did you recently fight against the Trump administration to defend
transgender rights? It’s a yes or no question
g. That’s very interesting because your church recently had a
pray-away-the-gay conference.
h. So do you believe that you are a credible source to give opinions against
the Trump’s administration executive order while you have also fought
against the Trump administration for transgender rights which is against
your moral beliefs? Because I am unsure if you are actually against the
executive order or you are against it for political gain just like you were
“fighting” for transgender rights
Cross: Uma ​Professor Michael C. Dorf (Establishment clause expert): Paloma
- Book on law v politics: No litmus test
- Criticizes republicans for being hypocritical (​"Michael Dorf")
- Mr. Dorf writes that Hawaii must prove that the executive order disproportionately
burdens Muslims (Dorf)
- If Dorf claims that EO 13780 does disproportionately burden Muslims, follow this
line of questioning:
- John Mattis, in his earlier testimony, explained that the countries included
in the EO were chosen because of their ranking on the terror index,
- If he says no, he was not paying attention/ is lying
- If yes, follow with
- You heard Mattis then explain that Muslim countries make
up the highest rankings on the terror index, right?
- If no, lying/not paying attention
- If yes follow with
- So, if a country has been shown to pose the
highest threat to national security due to
terrorist activity, isn’t it true that it would be
a proportionate response to take more
precautions against them?
- In a separate article, Dorf explains that if the EO is held to be in violation of the
establishment clause, it will be because of Trump's previous statements on
Muslims, particularly calling the law a Muslim Ban during his campaign. Dorf
explains that this can be used to establish that President Trump has religious
grounds for passing the law (Dorf)
- There are multiple lines of questioning you can follow: (these are
assuming you are presented with evidence of Trump calling it a Muslim
Ban etc)
1. You were listening to President Trump’s testimony, correct?
a. Did you see him take the oath?
b. And do you recall what his response was when he was asked how
he decided which countries to include in the executive order?
c. Can you repeat to me what he said?
d. **depends on what I ask after cross examination
i. Do you recall what he said when I asked him if he
1. Hates Muslims
2. Wanted to target them
3. Was motivated by the religion in his actions
e. And you believe that President Trump passed EO 13780 with racist
i. She will have to say yes
1. So, what you’re telling me is, despite the fact that
you saw President Trump take the oath, and heard
him say that he had no racist intent, that his only
intent in passing this executive order was to protect
national security, you still believe he had racist
intent in issuing this executive order?
a. She has to say yes, or she contradicts herself
2. Mr. Dorf, are you accusing the President of the
United states of perjury?
2. You’re aware that, as John Kelly and John Mattis, testified before, they
advised Trump both in writing and to issue this Executive Order? (second
line of questioning)
3. And do you recall John Mattis’s explanation of why the countries were
chosen as such?
4. Do you recall John Kelly’s explanation of why he supported the travel
5. Do you have grounds on which to claim that these men, too were
motivated by racist intent?
Cross: Uma ​Andrew M. Koppelman (​Lemon test expert​): Karis
1) Can you remind us how the lemon test was developed?
a) And in that court case it was the 1969 Supplement Act and The Pennsylvania
Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act which were held
unconstitutional correct?
i) And can you summarize for us what these Acts did?
(1) Supplement act allowed 15% salary increase to non secular
teachers in private schools, Pennsylvania Statute allowed the
contracting of non secular teachers by public schools
(2) So, both the Acts mentioned religion explicitly in their language
and dealt with funding on the basis of religious practice right,
using words like “religion” and “secular”?
(a) If no, simplify the question further and make her answer it
as yes..because it is true
(3) After the oral arguments, Justice Berger wrote the quote below,
can be used against us or for us depending on how they make their
(a) “Instead, they commanded that there should be "no law
respecting an establishment of religion." A law may be one
"respecting" the forbidden objective while falling short of
its total realization. A law "respecting" the proscribed
result, that is, the establishment of religion, is not always
easily identifiable as one violative of the Clause. A given
law might not establish a state religion, but nevertheless be
one "respecting" that end in the sense of being a step that
could lead to such establishment, and hence offend the First
(b) Are you aware the Berger used these standards to
determine if there was EXCESSIVE
ENTANGLEMENT“In order to determine whether the
government entanglement with religion is excessive, we
must examine the character and purposes of the
institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that
the State provides, and the resulting relationship
between the government and the religious authority.”
(4) Get her to admit that there is explicit mention of secular and
religious schools, which means that the government would be
responsible for deciding whether courses are secular and how to
give teachers raises after this decision by looking into a lot of
records, thus explicitly indicating religious entanglement, but their
case against the travel ban is based on an assumption of religious
intent. (​"Lemon v. Kurtzman")
2) Can you please tell us who Justice Scalia is, and Justice Thomas?
a) If not, credibility is automatically damaged
3) Are you familiar with their opinion on the lemon test
a) **only follow this line of questioning if they try to prove that it does not pass the
lemon test
4) Are you aware that the lemon test was designed to be used by judges?
5) **phone call pending
6) Would you agree that some judges have held the government in violation of the
establishment cause when it endorses religion and others when it coerces religion.
Cross: Preston ​Theodore Chuang (“well schooled in immigration and national-security law”):
1. No background which can be used to devalidate his opinion. Unfortunately this is a really
good witness. All questions are going to have to be responsive.
Cross: Preston: ​Lena F. Masri (Refugee/human rights expert): Lila
1. As a muslim civil rights attorney do you have a bias against President Trump because
you believe this is a so called “muslim ban”?
2. Do you believe that there any many muslims in North Korea and Venezuela? Countries
that are included in the executive order?
3. How can it be a muslim ban is some of the countries are not muslim?
4. How can it be a ban based on islam when it excludes indonesia, a nation with many
millions of muslims.
5. Would you please read the highlighted section of the evidence I submitted?
a. Are you aware that this court finding connects CAIR with Hamas?
b. Given that Hamas poses a security threat as a terrorist organization and you work
for an organization that has been tied to this terrorist organization, can you be
trusted to give national security advice

Closing Statement: ​Uma

I. Esteemed members of the Jury, I would like to remind you are deciding whether or not
we should protect American lives. Your choice will determine whether you whistle as
you walk to the grocery store, or you hear the whistling of bombs as you seek shelter in a
grocery store. You decide if a lawful and constitutional Executive order will protect your
children. So let's step back for a minute and look at the facts.
A. First, as Doris Meissner explained, the Executive order has many important
facets. Most importantly, it is NOT a travel “ban.” It is a temporary pause on the
entry of foreign citizens, subject to personalized waivers. She explained that his
act is an improvement of our vetting standards and a leap in our access to vital
information regarding terrorist organizations that pose a very real threat to our
B. After this, John Malcolm explained to us that the proclamation is a lawful
exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad. He
explained how, like many presidents before him, including Obama and Jimmy
Carter, Donald Trump was exercising the authority granted to him in congress in t
under the inadmissible aliens clause of the US Code.
C. Then, chief of staff John Kelly explained to us that Himself and the Attorney
General wrote letters expressing their support for Trump’s Executive order. Why
did the previous head of homeland security support the executive order? Because,
as he said, it is an issue of national security. Our lives are at risk every single day
under the threat of foreign terrorism attacks. To put it simply, as Kelly did, if we
knew what he did about terrorism, we would never leave the house.
D. Next, James Mattis himself explained to us that the countries mentioned in this
executive order were selected because of the threat they posed to national
security. The nation's mentioned, including Venezuela and North Korea, include a
range of religious backgrounds, but share one thing in common. They are amongst
the highest ranked countries on the terror index. They are the countries that
potentially endanger American lives.
E. We then spoke to John Taylor who, in no uncertain terms, explained to us that the
Executive order is NOT a violation of the establishment clause because it DOES
not deal with religion at all. The ill founded and speculation based theory some
desperately cling to is that the Executive order discriminates against Muslims. Not
only did Taylor explain to us that the act includes nation's without Muslim
majorities, he also explains that the seven most densely Muslim countries are not
included on the ban. Not included. Sure, countries with the highest rankings on
the terror index are listed, but not the countries with the highest Muslim
population. Not to mention never one is religion mentioned in the executive order
itself. This tells us that the proclamation is about NOTHING more than national
F. Next we heard testimony from President Donald Trump himself, who told us once
and for all that his intent with this order is to protect national security. Not to
discriminate. He selected the countries based on the threat they posed to America
and upon the advice of the secretary of defense, his chief of staff, and the attorney
II. Brief overview of why the main points of the other side are incorrect
Rebuttal: Preston
1. We have shown that the case is both constitutional and helps to protect the security of
American citizens.
2. Now I just want to briefly remind the jury of the most important aspect of the case: The
Precedent. You see, the decision we make today will have a tremendous impact on the
future of this great nation. If you rule in favor of the defendants, You will set possibly the
most dangerous precedent in American history. You will give the courts the authority to
interpret the intent of elected officials. Any law or executive order passed could be struck
down by the courts simply because a court believes they ​intended​ to violate the
constitution. Judges of opposing parties could strike down laws fairly passed by congress.
The already least democratic branch of the government, consisting of appointed officials
often with life terms, would be granted the unchecked power to shape our government.
Your decision could destroy the country. So choose carefully.
Lawyers’ Works Cited

“Argument Summary: Hawaii v. Trump.” ​Lawfare​, 17 May 2017,​.

Dorf, Michael C. "Did Trump’s “Muslim Ban” Talk Permanently Taint His

Immigration Policy?" Verdict,

trumps-muslim-ban-talk-permanently-taint-immigration-policy. Accessed 6

Apr. 2018.

---. "What’s Different​And What Isn’t​About Travel Ban 3.0." Verdict, 4 Oct.


Accessed 6 Apr. 2018.

“First Amendment.” ​LII / Legal Information Institute​, 10 Oct. 2017,​.

"Lemon v. Kurtzman." Legal Information Institute,

supremecourt/text/403/602#ZO-403_US_602n2. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

Malcolm, John. “Travel Ban Is President's Authority.” ​The Heritage Foundation​,


"Michael Dorf." Cornell Law School,

bio_michael_dorf.cfm. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

“Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument President's Travel Ban, Dec 6 2017.” ​​,

Pierce, Sarah, and Doris Meissner. “Trump Executive Order on Refugees and Travel Ban: A

Brief Review.” ​​, 22 Jan. 2018,


“Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting

Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.” ​The

White House​, The United States Government,


Shoichet, Catherine. "Trump's travel ban stranded her. Then America welcomed

her." CNN, 28 Mar. 2018,

travel-ban-somali-refugees-one-year-later/index.html. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

Supreme Court to Review Travel Ban 3.0 - Trump v. Hawaii​,


“Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project.” ​Ballotpedia​,

“Trump v. Hawaii.” ​Oyez​, ​​.

Xi, James Y. "Judge Gorsuch and the Establishment Clause." Stanford Law Review,

Mar. 2017,

spotlight-establishment-clause/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

Witness Works Cited

Bierman, Noah. “Donald Trump promises ‘extreme screening’ to combat ‘medieval times.’” ​LA

Times​, 19 Sept. 2016,

ses-extreme-vetting-1474320478-htmlstory.html. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

Cameron, Darla. “Why Trump’s latest travel ban included these eight countries.” ​Washington

Post​, 19 Jan. 2017,

053379e07. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

Finnegan, Connor. “A timeline of Trump’s battle with the courts to keep his travel ban alive.”

ABC​, 19 Oct. 2017,

98. Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

​Global Terrorism Index 2017​. 2017, Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

"Petition for Writ of Certiorari." NAFSA,

trumpvIRAPcertpetition.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr. 2018.

“Trump: We don’t want them here.” ​Youtube​, uploaded by CNN, 27 Jan. 2017, Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

“Trump: Many Muslims friends are in agreement with me.” ​Youtube​, uploaded by CNN, 9 Dec.

2015, Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.

“Trump: 'I'm the Least Racist Person'.” ​Youtube​, uploaded by CNN, 9 Dec. 2015, Accessed 5 Apr. 2018.