By Steven Gordon (August 13, 2018, 2:10 PM EDT) -- A number of the legal challenges to President Donald Trump's various immigration initiatives contend that those executive actions are based on religious or racial animus. Litigants have cited various statements made by the president, before and after his election, in support of their claims. To what extent should courts take into account the alleged motives behind an executive order or an agency action in considering challenges to them? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in its recent decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld Trump's so-called travel ban against the contention that the ban is anti-Muslim and violates the establishment clause.[1] However, it appears that some lower federal courts have not understood the court's message....