Mormon historians battle Trump in friend-of-the-court brief

Adobe Stock

Mormon immigrants were refused entry into the United States in the 1800s because of religious persecution. Mormon historians cited this history in a legal brief filed at the Supreme Court attacking President Trump’s travel ban.

HYDERABAD, India — Some Mormon immigrants in the 1800s were refused entry into the United States, jailed at the border or pressured to renounce their faith and convert to Protestantism.

On Thursday, 21 scholars in Mormon history filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to consider that history and the negative results when the justices consider President Trump’s travel ban in October.

In 1879, U.S. Secretary of State William M. Everts issued a temporary ban on immigration by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“Most Americans have a story about ancestors who came as immigrants to the United States, many under pressure,” said Richard Bushman, an emeritus professor at Columbia University and author of “Rough Stone Rolling,” the definitive biography of Joseph Smith. “Mormons were among the most reviled when they came. We have to take a stand with those who flee to America as a refuge.”

Nathan Oman, a Mormon law professor at William & Mary, wrote the brief with the California Appellate Law Group’s Anna-Rose Mathieson, who represented the scholars before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nineteen of the scholars had filed an earlier amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit attacking the Trump travel ban.

Oman said then that the brief provides the court with an opportunity to scrutinize the executive order in a way that didn’t exist when the U.S. government acted against Mormons.

The scholars’ argument is that temporary bans tend to expand into law and lead to unexpected and negative long-term ramifications. In the case of 19th century Mormons, Congress dissolved the church as a legal entity, seized its assets and revoked the right of Mormon women to vote.

The brief concluded that “This court has long-held that the judiciary…

Read the full article from the Source…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *