Quantcast
Home / Op Shop / 4th Circuit Haikus: Travel Ban Edition

4th Circuit Haikus: Travel Ban Edition

On Feb. 15, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals published its long-awaited opinion on the third iteration of the Trump administration’s travel ban. Weighing in at an intimidating 285 pages, International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump included the opinion of the court, four concurrences, and three dissents.

On the off-chance that some haven’t found the time to wade through the entirety of all that jurisprudence, here are each of the eight opinions in the case paraphrased to the size of a haiku poem:

MAJORITY OPINION:

Anti-Muslim tweets

Show religious animus,

And they keep coming.

GREGORY, Chief Judge, concurring:

And, immigration

Is the province of Congress.

Check Article I.

KEENAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

And, the INA’s

Anti-discrimination

Provision applies.

WYNN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

They’re banning Muslims.

The Immigration Act says

They can’t. That’s enough.

HARRIS, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I recommend we

Stick to the Constitution.

No avoiding it.

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

The majority

Is wrong in every respect.

Tweets don’t prove intent.

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge: dissenting:

This third travel ban

Was more thoughtfully designed.

That outweighs the tweets.

AGEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

And, no plaintiff showed

An injury under the

Establishment Clause.

Check this space later for more 4th Circuit haikus.