Donald Trump lashes out at DOJ over travel ban legal strategy
Memo from legal experts to President Donald Trump on resurrecting his stalled travel ban: Quit Twitter. Trump’s 140-character musings Monday may have undercut his own efforts to persuade the Supreme Court to reinstate his revised travel ban, which Trump called a “watered-down, politically correct” version of what he’d originally sought. Just as Trump’s Justice Department is arguing the ban doesn’t target Muslims, legal experts said the president seems to be suggesting the opposite. Those who oppose the travel ban said Trump’s Tweetstorm, ironically, helps their case. Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general representing Hawaii in its lawsuit against the ban, said it was as if Trump was his co-counsel. “We don’t need the help but will take it!” Katyal wrote in his own Twitter post. The courts in January halted Trump’s initial order, which banned travel from seven majority-Muslim countries and indefinitely halted entry to Syrian refugees. Trump begrudgingly scaled back the order by removing Iraq from the list and making the Syria refugee ban only temporary, but that order was blocked by the courts, too. At the heart of the legal wrangling is whether Trump’s proposed ban violates the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion. As a candidate, Trump called for a “Muslim ban,” comments that came back to haunt him as president when the courts determined that even his scaled-down order was “rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country.” Not so, the Justice Department has argued, insisting the temporary ban is based on credible national security concerns unrelated to religion, and his campaign statements should be ignored. But Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, said Trump was making that argument much less tenable by calling the revised order “politically correct.” “These tweets are basically winking at his supporters to say, obviously, I’m only doing this so that the courts will uphold it,” Vladeck said. “It makes it harder to argue this is not a Muslim ban, and more importantly, it makes it harder to argue that the president’s statements should be irrelevant.” In a series of early-morning tweets, Trump bashed the Justice Department for its decision to ask the Supreme Court to review the second version of the ban – which he signed. “The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.,” Trump said. He urged the Justice Department, which he oversees, to seek a “much tougher version” of the order. Hoping to shore up the order’s legal underpinnings, both the White House and Trump’s Homeland Security chief have insisted it’s not actually a “travel ban,” criticizing reporters for mischaracterizing it. But Trump on Monday was having none of it. “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump wrote. He pounded the point home Monday night, tweeting, “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!” The inconsistency put White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders in a delicate spot Monday afternoon as questions streamed in about why Trump was contradicting his aides. His Twitter missive notwithstanding, Sanders insisted Trump “isn’t concerned with what you call it,” only with protecting Americans. Sanders said the president had asked the Justice Department to pursue an expedited hearing at the Supreme Court, adding that Trump “wants to go as far and as strong as possible under the Constitution to protect the people of this country.” Still, she said he’d signed the revised ban “for the purposes of expediency” and wasn’t considering a third version of the ban. Trump argues the ban is crucial for safeguarding American security, and he has intensified his push for it in the wake of the weekend vehicle and knife attack in London that left seven people dead and dozens injured. The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for the attack. The second-guessing about Trump’s Twitter strategy extended to the husband of one Trump’s senior advisers. New York lawyer George T. Conway III, whose wife is White House aide Kellyanne Conway, wrote that online statements “may make some ppl feel better,” but won’t help win a Supreme Court majority. “Sad,” he said on Twitter, borrowing a phrase from Trump’s own Twitter. Conway had been considered for at least two high-ranking Justice Department jobs, including solicitor general, the government lawyer who represents the president at the Supreme Court. Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, called Trump “the worst client” for the solicitor general. “When you’re a lawyer what you want is your client to stay silent,” he said. Trump has the authority to order the Justice Department to pursue a different strategy. It’s unclear whether the president has conveyed his requests to the department in a forum other than Twitter. The Justice Department declined to comment. Trump has used attacks around the world to justify his pursuit of the travel and immigration ban, one of his first acts since taking office. The original order, signed at the end of his first week in office, was hastily unveiled without significant input from top Trump national security advisers or relevant federal agencies. After that order was struck down, the administration decided to write a second directive rather than appeal the initial ban to the Supreme Court. The narrower would temporarily halt entry to the U.S. from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. If anything, Supreme Court may be more likely to hear the case in light of the tweets, to determine once and for all how far the president’s power goes, said Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams. It’s unclear when it will make that decision. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Travel ban judges scrutinize Donald Trump’s Muslim statements
Federal judges on Monday peppered a lawyer for President Donald Trump with questions about whether the administration’s travel ban discriminates against Muslims and zeroed in on the president’s campaign statements, the second time in a week the rhetoric has faced judicial scrutiny. Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, defending the travel ban, told the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the executive order should be reinstated because it falls well within the president’s authority. “No one has ever attempted to set aside a law that is neutral on its face and neutral in its operation on the basis of largely campaign trail comments made by a private citizen running for office,” he said. Further, Wall said the president had backed off the comments he made during the campaign, clarifying that “what he was talking about was Islamic terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor or shelter them.” Neal Katyal, who represented Hawaii, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, expressed disbelief at that argument and said Trump had repeatedly spoken of a Muslim ban during the presidential campaign and after. “This is a repeated pattern of the president,” Katyal said. The 9th Circuit panel was hearing arguments over Hawaii’s lawsuit challenging the travel ban, which would suspend the nation’s refugee program and temporarily bar new visas for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The judges will decide whether to uphold a Hawaii judge’s decision in March that blocked the ban. Last week, judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether to affirm a Maryland judge’s decision putting the ban on ice. They also questioned whether they could consider Trump’s campaign statements, with one judge asking if there was anything other than “willful blindness” that would prevent them from doing so. Dozens of advocates for refugees and immigrants rallied outside the federal courthouse in Seattle, some carrying “No Ban, No Wall” signs. Wall’s insistence that the travel ban should be upheld because it is “neutral,” without reference to Islam, drew pointed questions from Judge Richard Paez. An executive order issued by President Franklin Roosevelt that led to the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II similarly was couched as a necessity for national security and made no reference to residents of Japanese heritage, Paez noted. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that executive order in a challenge brought by California resident Fred Korematsu. The ruling is now widely considered regrettable. “Would the Korematsu executive order pass muster under your test today?” Paez grilled Wall. “No, Judge Paez,” he answered “Why not? ‘Facially legitimate’ – that’s all you say!” Paez said. “You emphasize ‘facially legitimate.’” “I want to be very clear about this,” Wall said solemnly. “This case is not Korematsu, and if it were I wouldn’t be standing here and the United States would not be defending it.” Wall went on to argue that unlike the Korematsu case, Trump’s executive order probably wouldn’t be questioned but for the statements he made as a candidate. Paez also questioned Katyal about Trump’s statements, calling them “profound.” But the judge wondered whether Trump is forever forbidden from adopting an executive order along the lines of his travel ban. Katyal said no, and suggested the president could begin by repudiating his earlier statements or by working with Congress. “If you rule for him, you defer to the president in a way that history teaches us is very dangerous,” Katyal said. Monday’s arguments marked the second time Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration from certain Muslim-majority nations have reached the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. After Trump issued his initial travel ban on a Friday in late January, bringing chaos and protests to airports around the country, a Seattle judge blocked its enforcement nationwide – a decision that was unanimously upheld by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel. The president then rewrote his executive order, rather than appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in March, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu blocked the new version from taking effect, citing what he called “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” in Trump’s campaign statements. “Again, in this court, the President claims a nearly limitless power to make immigration policy that is all but immune from judicial review,” Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin wrote to the 9th Circuit. “Again, he must be checked.” At his daily briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer expressed confidence that the executive order will be upheld by the appeals court. “The executive order is fully lawful and will be upheld. We fully believe that,” Spicer said. The travel ban cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court, but that would likely be cemented if the 4th and 9th Circuits reach differing conclusions about its legality. Because of how the courts chose to proceed, a full slate of 13 judges heard the 4th Circuit arguments last week, while just three, all appointees of President Bill Clinton, will consider the case in Seattle. With the possibility for myriad concurring or dissenting opinions, it could take the 4th Circuit longer to rule, noted Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond law school in Virginia. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Court likely to question if Donald Trump’s travel ban discriminates
For the second time in a week, government lawyers will try to persuade a federal appeals court to reinstate President Donald Trump‘s revised travel ban – and once again, they can expect plenty of questions Monday about whether it was designed to discriminate against Muslims. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled arguments in Seattle over Hawaii’s lawsuit challenging the travel ban, which would suspend the nation’s refugee program and temporarily bar new visas for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Last week, judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether to affirm a Maryland judge’s decision putting the ban on ice. They peppered Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall with questions about whether they could consider Trump’s campaign statements calling for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., with one judge asking if there was anything other than “willful blindness” that would prevent them from doing so. Monday’s arguments mark the second time Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration from certain Muslim-majority nations have reached the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. After Trump issued his initial travel ban on a Friday in late January, bringing chaos and protests to airports around the country, a Seattle judge blocked its enforcement nationwide – a decision that was unanimously upheld by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel. The president then rewrote his executive order, rather than appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in March, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu blocked the new version from taking effect, citing what he called “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” in Trump’s campaign statements. “Again, in this court, the President claims a nearly limitless power to make immigration policy that is all but immune from judicial review,” Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin wrote to the 9th Circuit. “Again, he must be checked.” The administration’s lawyers are seeking to persuade the judges that the lower court’s decision is “fundamentally wrong,” and that the president’s order falls squarely within his duty to secure the nation’s borders. The order as written is silent on religion, and neither Hawaii nor its co-plaintiff, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, has standing to sue, they say – arguments that were rejected in the lower court. The travel ban cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court, but that would likely be cemented if the 4th and 9th Circuits reach differing conclusions about its legality. Because of how the courts chose to proceed, a full slate of 13 judges heard the 4th Circuit arguments last week, while just three, all appointees of President Bill Clinton, will sit in Seattle. For that reason – with the possibility for myriad concurring or dissenting opinions – it could take the 4th Circuit longer to rule, noted Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond law school in Virginia. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Appeals court to weigh challenge to revised Donald Trump travel ban
After a series of stinging legal defeats, President Donald Trump‘s administration hopes to convince a federal appeals court that his travel ban targeting six-Muslim majority countries is motivated by national security, not religion. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday will examine a ruling that blocks the administration from temporarily barring new visas for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It’s the first time an appeals court will hear arguments on the revised travel ban, which is likely destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. Pointing to the Republican’s promises on the campaign trail to bar Muslims from entering the country, a federal judge in Maryland found in March that the policy appeared to be driven primarily by religious animus. Attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department say the court shouldn’t rely on Trump’s statements, but on the text of the policy, which they say is necessary to protect the country from terrorism. The banned countries represent just a fraction of the predominantly Muslim countries worldwide, they note. “The court should have focused on official acts, not perceived subjective motivations,” the attorneys say in court documents. The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center say Trump wants the courts to “blind themselves to the ample, public, and uncontested evidence” that the policy targets Muslims. “The basic question in this case is whether the mountain of evidence that exists as to the improper motive is going to be looked at by this court or swept under the rug,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who will argue the case Monday. In an extraordinary move signifying the importance of the case, the 4th Circuit decided to bypass the three-judge panel that typically first hears appeals and go straight to the full-court hearing. While the 4th Circuit was long considered one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country, it moved to the center under President Barack Obama, who appointed six of the 15 active judges. Now, nine judges are Democratic appointees and five judges are Republican appointees. Chief Judge Roger Gregory was given a recess appointment to the court by President Bill Clinton and was reappointed by President George W. Bush. It will likely be weeks before the 4th Circuit issues a decision. And even if the court sides with Trump, the travel ban will remain blocked unless the president also wins in another appeals court. A federal judge in Hawaii has also blocked the six-country travel ban as well as the freeze on the U.S. refugee program. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will meet next Monday to hear arguments in that case. Audio of the 2:30 p.m. EDT 4th Circuit will be broadcast live on C-SPAN. The court will also provide a link to the audio feed on its website. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama announces its support for Donald Trump’s travel ban
The state of Alabama has thrown its support behind President Donald Trump‘s revised travel ban. On Monday, Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall announced Alabama has joined 12 other states in filing an amicus brief in support of the Trump administration’s executive order temporarily restricting the admission of foreign nationals from six countries posing a security risk to the United States. The executive order was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in Maryland, and the Trump administration has since appealed that ruling. Marshall says Trump has the legal authority to forbid foreign nationals from entering the U.S. “As president of the United States, Donald Trump has the legal authority to restrict entry into this country of any foreign national who may pose a risk to our safety and security,” observed Marshall. “It defies reason that the federal courts would seek to block the Commander in Chief from exercising his legal authority to preemptively safeguard Americans’ security. “In response, Alabama has sent a signal that we support the Trump administration’s executive order restricting entry of foreign nationals from six countries with the strongest record of terrorism: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.” Alabama joined Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia in filing an amicus brief Monday in support of the Trump administration.
2 federal judges find new Donald Trump travel ban discriminatory
Rejecting arguments from the government that President Donald Trump‘s revised travel ban was substantially different from the first one, judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked the executive order from taking effect as scheduled on Thursday, using the president’s own words as evidence that the order discriminates against Muslims. The rulings in Hawaii late Wednesday and in Maryland early Thursday were victories for civil liberties groups and advocates for immigrants and refugees, who argued that a temporary ban on travel from six predominantly Muslim countries violated the First Amendment. The Trump administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States from terrorism. In Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang — who was appointed by then-president Barack Obama — called Trump’s own statements about barring Muslims from entering the United States “highly relevant.” The second executive order removed a preference for religious minorities from the affected countries, among other changes that the Justice Department argued would address the legal concerns surrounding the first ban, which was also blocked in court. “Despite these changes, the history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang said. The initial ban sparked chaos at U.S. airports and widespread criticism around the world when it was signed in January. It was later blocked by a judge in Washington state, a ruling that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Honolulu, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson criticized what he called the “illogic” of the government’s arguments and cited “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” behind the travel ban. He also noted that while courts should not examine the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decision-makers, “the remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.” Watson also wrote, referring to a statement Trump issued as a candidate, “For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.’” The White House and the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Thursday. The case was argued in court by acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who said the ban “doesn’t say anything about religion. It doesn’t draw any religious distinctions.” Speaking Wednesday evening at a rally in Nashville, Tennessee, Trump called the ruling in Hawaii an example of “unprecedented judicial overreach” and said his administration would appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also called his new travel ban a watered-down version of the first one, which he said he wished he could implement. “We’re going to win. We’re going to keep our citizens safe,” the president said. “The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.” While the Hawaii order only halts the ban temporarily, Chuang’s ruling in Maryland took the form of a preliminary injunction, which will remain in effect indefinitely as the case is litigated. Chuang was also the first judge to stop the ban outside the 9th Circuit, which has a liberal reputation. “Unless and until the president realizes that this is a battle in which he’s going to keep losing and decides to do the right thing and abandon this course, for as long as he’s on it we’ll keep litigating it and I think we’re going to keep winning,” said Omar Jadwat, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union in Maryland. Chuang did not block the entire executive order, saying the plaintiffs didn’t sufficiently develop their argument that a temporary ban on refugees discriminates on the basis or religion. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case also had sought to stop a portion of the order that would reduce the number of refugees allowed to enter the country this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. Still, the judge’s order is hugely meaningful for many plaintiffs, including a man in Texas whose same-sex fiancé is seeking a visa to enter the United States from Iran, said Justin Cox, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center who also argued the Maryland case. “This Muslim ban was threatening to either separate or continue to separate families who’ve already been separated for months and years,” Cox said. “It has real-world consequences and we were obviously very glad to see that Judge Chuang recognized those and rejected the government’s frankly callous argument that our clients have already been waiting and another few months couldn’t possibly be irreparable.” If the administration appeals Watson’s decision at the 9th Circuit level, the matter would be heard by different judges from the three who ruled on the case last month. That’s because the panel of judges assigned to such cases rotates every month, said court spokesman David Madden. The 9th Circuit on Wednesday declined to reconsider the 3-0 decision not to reinstate the original ban. In a dissent, five judges said they considered that decision incorrect and wanted it vacated. The hearings in Maryland and Hawaii were two of three held Wednesday in federal courts around the country. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who blocked the initial travel ban last month, did not immediately rule on a request from an immigrant-rights group to block the revised version. In all, more than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama’s senators back new Trump travel ban order
President Donald Trump’s new travel ban executive order received a warm reception from Alabama’s senators this week. U.S. Senators Richard Shelby and Luther Strange praised President Donald Trump‘s revised executive order, which bar new visas being issued to travelers from six countries — Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya — for 90 days. Shelby says he’s been a long-time supporter of “a rigorous review of our vetting process” in regards to those allowed to enter the country. “The safety and security of the American people must be a top priority,” Shelby said in a statement. “I have always supported a rigorous review of our vetting process for those who cross our nation’s borders, and I am pleased that President Trump has appropriately modified his executive order to achieve this critical goal. I look forward to working with the Trump Administration and my colleagues in Congress to keep our citizens safe from any individual seeking to enter our nation and do us harm.” Alabama’s newest senator, who replaced Jeff Sessions, Luther Strange calls the new order “a proactive, comprehensive approach.” “Protecting Americans and securing the homeland are solemn obligations of the President,” weighed-in Strange. “The latest executive order takes a proactive, comprehensive approach, and gives us clarity about what steps are being taken to protect our communities. I applaud the President for taking action, and I look forward to working further on keeping America free from violent terrorists.” Trump signed the new order Monday weeks after his initial ban was put on hold by a federal judge and later upheld by an appeals court. The updated order clarifies the implementation of new U.S. visa and immigration protocol, provides resources for enhanced vetting of foreign nationals, and increases transparency in sharing these steps with the American people. It will go into effect on March 16th.
Donald Trump’s new travel ban comes without the chaos of first one
When President Donald Trump signed his first travel ban with scant warning and little planning seven days into his presidency, he meant to signal he was a man of action. After the lawsuits, chaos at airports and international criticism, Trump’s rewritten travel ban sent a different message: The White House has learned some lessons. The Trump administration’s unveiling of its revised restrictions on travel and refugees was deliberate and cautious, an implicit acknowledgement of some of the unforced errors from the first rollout. The executive order was announced by Trump’s Cabinet officials, some of whom felt cut out of consultations on the earlier version. It does not go into effect immediately, giving the world time to assess its impact. The White House took weeks of consultation with agency heads about how best to withstand expected legal challenges. The scaled-back order will still face fire from critics. It bars new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and temporarily shuts down America’s refugee program, affecting would-be visitors and immigrants from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Department of Homeland Security intelligence analysts have questioned the rationale behind it, concluding that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats to the United States. But the new ban does eliminate many of the original order’s most contentious elements. It removes Iraq from the list of banned countries — at the urging of U.S. military and diplomatic leaders — and it makes clear that current visa holders will not be impacted. It also removes language that would give priority to religious minorities — a provision some interpreted as a way to help Christians get into the U.S. while excluding Muslims. Trump signed the order without fanfare in a closed-press ceremony in the Oval Office. Legal experts say the new order addresses some of the constitutional concerns raised by a federal appeals court about the initial ban but leaves room for more legal challenges. “It’s much clearer about how it doesn’t apply to groups of immigrants with more clearly established constitutional rights,” said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. “That’s a really important step.” Trump officials say the goal hasn’t changed: keeping would-be terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews vetting systems for refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world. “It is the president’s solemn duty to protect the American people, and with this order President Trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe,” said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at a brief press announcement, where he, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Attorney General Jeff Sessions served as the public faces of the rollout. The original travel ban led to instant chaos at airports as Homeland Security officials scrambled to interpret how it was to be implemented and some travelers were detained before being sent back overseas or blocked from getting on airplanes abroad. The order quickly became the subject of several legal challenges and was put on hold last month by a federal judge in Washington state. This time, there was none of that chaos. The new order won’t take effect until March 16, despite repeated warnings from Trump and his aides that any delay would put national security at risk by allowing the entry of “bad dudes” who want to cause harm to the country. Press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters at the White House that Trump approved the final details of the revised executive order on Saturday night after meeting with Kelly, Sessions and members of his legal staff and policy team. Trump’s new order reinstates his four-month ban on all refugees from around the world and keeps in place his plan to reduce the number of refugees to be allowed into the United States this budget year to 50,000. Syrians are also no longer subjected to an indefinite ban, despite Trump’s insistence as a candidate that they pose a serious security threat. Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the group will try to block the new order from taking effect, either by amending the existing lawsuits that blocked Trump’s original ban or seeking a new injunction. “The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the project. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose state won a court order blocking the travel ban, said the new travel ban is more legally palatable than the old one but that it still poses concerns and could prompt further court challenges from the state. “Bottom line is the president has capitulated on numerous key provisions that we contested in court about a month ago,” Ferguson said at a news conference in his Seattle office. “This is a very significant victory for the people of the state of Washington.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump signs new travel ban targeting those seeking new visas
President Donald Trump on Monday signed a new version of his controversial travel ban, aiming to withstand court challenges while still barring new visas for citizens from six Muslim-majority countries and shutting down the U.S. refugee program. The revised travel order leaves Iraq off the list of banned countries but still affects would-be visitors from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Trump privately signed the new order Monday while Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions formally unveiled the new edict. The low-key rollout was a contrast to the first version of the order, signed in a high-profile ceremony at the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes as Secretary of Defense James Mattis stood by Trump’s side. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was not scheduled to hold an on-camera briefing Monday either, leading to the appearance that the president was distancing himself from the order, which was a signature issue during his campaign and the first days of his presidency. The order also risks being overshadowed by unsubstantiated accusations the president made over the weekend that former President Barack Obama had ordered the wiretapping of his phone during the campaign. The original travel ban caused immediate panic and chaos at airports around the country as Homeland Security officials scrambled to interpret how it was to be implemented and travelers were detained before being sent back overseas or blocked from getting on airplanes abroad. The order quickly became the subject of several legal challenges and was ultimately put on hold last month by a federal judge in Washington state. That ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court. The revised order is narrower and specifies that a 90-day ban on people from the six countries does not apply to those who already have valid visas or people with U.S. green cards. The White House dropped Iraq from the list of targeted countries following pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider, given Iraq’s key role in fighting the Islamic State group. Syrian nationals are also no longer subjected to an indefinite ban, despite Trump’s instance as a candidate that Syrian refugees in particular posed a serious security threat to the United States. In a call with reporters Monday morning, senior officials from Homeland Security and Justice Department said the travel ban was necessary to allow the government to review what more can be done to properly vet would-be visitors and refugees. The officials said 300 people who arrived in the United States as refugees were currently under investigation as part of terrorism-related cases. The officials pointed to those cases as evidence of the need for the travel order, but refused repeated requests to address how many of those people were from the six banned countries or how long they have been in the United States. A fact sheet describing the new order circulated before the new order was announced cites negotiations that resulted in Iraq agreeing to “increase cooperation with the U.S. government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States.” The mere existence of a fact sheet signaled that the White House was taking steps to improve the rollout of the reworked directive. The initial measure was hastily signed at the end of Trump’s first week in office, and the White House was roundly criticized for not providing lawmakers, Cabinet officials and others with information ahead of the signing. Trump administration officials say that even with the changes, the goal of the new order is the same as the first: keeping would-be terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews the vetting system for refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world. According to the fact sheet, the Department of Homeland Security will conduct a country-by-country review of the information the six targeted nations provide to the U.S. for visa and immigration decisions. Those countries will then have 50 days to comply with U.S. government requests to update or improve that information. Additionally, Trump’s order suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days, though refugees already formally scheduled for travel by the State Department will be allowed entry. When the suspension is lifted, the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. will be capped at 50,000 for fiscal year 2017. The new version also to removes language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics had accused the administration of adding such language to help Christians get into the U.S. while excluding Muslims. “I think people will see six or seven major points about this executive order that do clarify who was covered,” said presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway in an interview with Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.” She said the new order will not go into effect until March 16, despite earlier warnings from the president and his team that any delay in implementation would pose a national security risk, allowing dangerous people to flow into the country. Legal experts say the new order addresses some of the constitutional concerns raised by a federal appeals court about the initial ban, but leaves room for more legal challenges. “It’s much clearer about how it doesn’t apply to groups of immigrants with more clearly established constitutional rights,” said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. “That’s a really important step.” Removing language that would give priority to religious minorities helps address concerns that the initial ban was discriminatory, but its continued focus on Muslim-majority countries leaves the appearance that the order is a “Muslim ban,” Vladeck said. “There’s still going to be plenty of work for the courts to do,” he said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Airports, legal volunteers prepare for new Donald Trump travel ban
Airport officials and civil rights lawyers around the country are getting ready for President Donald Trump‘s new travel ban — mindful of the chaos that accompanied his initial executive order but hopeful the forthcoming version will be rolled out in a more orderly way. The new order was expected as soon as Wednesday. A draft suggested it would target people from the same seven predominantly Muslim countries but would exempt travelers who already have visas to come to the U.S. Since last month’s ban, which courts have put on hold, a section of the international arrivals area at Dulles International Airport outside the nation’s capital has been transformed into a virtual law firm, with legal volunteers ready to greet travelers from affected countries and ask if they saw anyone being detained. Similar efforts are underway at other airports, including Seattle-Tacoma International, where officials have drawn up plans for crowd control after thousands crammed the baggage claim area to protest the original ban. “The plan is to be as ready as possible,” said Lindsay Nash, an immigration law professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York who has been helping prepare emergency petitions on behalf of those who might be detained. Trump’s initial action, issued Jan. 27, temporarily barred citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya from coming to the U.S. and halted acceptance of all refugees. The president said his administration would review vetting procedures amid concerns about terrorism in those seven nations. Protesters flooded U.S. airports that weekend, seeking to free travelers detained by customs officials amid confusion about who could enter the country, including U.S. permanent residents known as green-card holders. Attorneys also challenged the order in court, including officials from Washington state. That lawsuit, which Minnesota joined, resulted in a federal judge temporarily blocking the government from enforcing the travel ban, a decision unanimously upheld by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Many civil rights lawyers and activists have said they don’t believe a new order would cure all the constitutional problems of the original, including the claim that it was motivated by anti-Muslim discrimination. Trump has said he singled out the seven countries because they had already been deemed a security concern by the Obama administration. In his first address to Congress Tuesday night, Trump said his administration “is taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism” and is working on improved vetting procedures. “And we will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe — and to keep out those who would do us harm,” Trump said. Last week, analysts at the Homeland Security Department’s intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of the seven Muslim-majority countries pose a terror threat to the United States. “It’s not enough to just tweak an order and not change the nature of why it was issued in the first place,” said Rula Aoun, director of the Arab-American Civil Rights League in Dearborn, Michigan, which sued over the initial ban and is prepared to do the same with the rewrite if necessary. In New York, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt said the organization was ready to go to court if the administration tries to immediately enforce its new order. “The primary focus is being able to respond immediately to any request by the government to lift any of the injunctions, before the courts have had a chance to examine the new order,” he said. Activists and airport officials alike said they hoped it would be phased in to give travelers fair warning, which might preclude any detentions from arriving flights. “We are prepared and willing,” said Rebecca Sharpless, who runs the immigration clinic at the University of Miami School of Law. “But it’s unlikely to cause the same kind of chaos of last time.” At Dulles, Sea-Tac, Minneapolis-St. Paul and other airports, legal volunteers have greeted arriving travelers in shifts every day since the initial ban, wearing name tags or posting signs in different languages to identify themselves. The legal-services nonprofit OneJustice was ready to send email alerts to 3,000 volunteers in California if needed, deploying them to San Francisco and Los Angeles airports for people affected by any new order, chief executive Julia Wilson said. In Chicago, travelers have been signing up for an assistance program started by the local Council on American-Islamic Relations office to ensure swift legal help if they’re detained. Groups urged those arriving at 17 other airports, including Miami, Atlanta and San Diego, to register with Airport Lawyer, a secure website and free mobile app that alerts volunteer lawyers to ensure travelers make it through customs without trouble. Asti Gallina, a third-year student at the University of Washington Law School, volunteered at Sea-Tac for the first time Tuesday. It was quiet, she said. “An essential part of the American narrative is the ability to come to America,” Gallina said. “Any infringement of that is something that needs to be resisted.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Questions and answers about upcoming travel ban order
President Donald Trump‘s travel ban has been frozen by the courts, but the White House has promised a new executive order that officials say will address concerns raised by judges that have put the policy on hold. The first order was met by legal challenges, confusion at airports and mass protests. The White House has forecast smoother sailing the second time around. White House press secretary Sean Spicer predicted “it will be implemented flawlessly” because of the due diligence of officials. But no matter what the new policy says, lawsuits challenging its aims are expected. Questions and answers about the path ahead: WHEN IS THE ORDER COMING, AND WHAT WILL IT SAY? The White House says it expects to issue a new order next week, though it has not said exactly when. Trump aide Stephen Miller said at a Fox News town hall this week that the new order would be very similar to the first, with “mostly minor technical differences” in response to opinions by judges who have blocked it. The Justice Department has said the Trump administration would be abandoning the original order, which should render moot ongoing court challenges to that order. But the president and the White House press secretary have also recently said that they intend to fight for the merits of the original order in court, even as they draft a replacement. The new order could go into effect immediately and would not be blocked by the court ruling that has kept the existing order on hold, said David Levine, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Levine said new regulations and laws are assumed to be legal until a court says otherwise. “It’s valid unless it’s invalid,” Levine said. ___ CAN WE EXPECT COURT CHALLENGES TO THE NEW ORDER? Almost certainly. For one thing, Washington state and Minnesota, the two states whose lawsuit led to a court order that halted the order, could move quickly for a court order putting any new ban on hold. In refusing this month to reinstate the travel ban, which a judge in Washington state had blocked from taking effect, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals identified “significant constitutional questions” with the administration’s plan to temporarily suspend the refugee program and to halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations. It’s hard to imagine a “bulletproof” order that could assuage the concerns of the immigrant rights community and other potential challengers, said Jon Michaels, a UCLA law professor. “My sense is, there will be challenges, and challenges will be at the very least plausible challenges,” Michaels said. A repeat of the chaos that the original order sparked is possible, said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. “It will surely be a mess,” he said. But the administration insists that won’t be the case. Spicer said Thursday the administration has “sought feedback and guidance and done this in an unbelievably comprehensive way to ensure that the departments and agencies that are going to be executing and implanting this fully are aware of what’s happening.” He said the administration is expecting potential new court challenges, but suggests the White House will be better prepared. ___ WILL THE NEW ONE PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER? That’s hard to say. The 9th Circuit decision, for instance, said the first order may have violated the constitutional rights of green-card holders to notice and a hearing before their travel was restricted. Any new policy may have to address that concern to be viable. The Justice Department has argued that a ban that exempts green-card holders and focuses only on foreigners from the seven nations who have never entered the U.S. would be entirely legal. But the court said Washington state and Minnesota might have a valid claim that even some of those foreigners have a constitutional right to challenge the ban. Foreigners outside the United States have, at best, limited rights to sue in U.S. courts. A narrowly tailored ban that focused on foreigners from the seven countries who have never entered the U.S. would also not do away with the states’ concern that the administration is illegally targeting people on the basis of religion. The First Amendment’s establishment clause bars discrimination on the basis of religion. To beat the religious discrimination argument, the government may also have to overcome statements outside of court by Trump and aides, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Challengers of the ban have held those statements up as evidence of discriminatory intent. The statements include Giuliani’s claim that Trump had asked him how to legally pull off a “Muslim ban,” and Trump’s own interview statements that Christian refugees had been disadvantaged. The 9th Circuit did not fully address the issue, but did note that courts assessing the motive of a government action can take into account statements by decision-makers. Those statements hinting at intent may prove hard to dispose of even if the policy changes, said Chris Edelson, an expert on presidential power at American University in Washington, D.C. “If the administration says, ‘Hey, we want to have a ban that applies to the people from these seven countries,’ what I would tell the administration is, ‘OK, we can try, but there’s a possibility the courts say that there’s a constitutional problem here,’” he said. ___ WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING CHALLENGES? If the original executive order is formally rescinded and replaced, as is the prerogative of a president, then lawsuits challenging it would be effectively nullified as the focus turns to the new policy, legal experts say. Even so, arguments made by lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota that appeared to sway the 9th Circuit could easily be recycled in another or amended legal challenge. But it may not be that easy for the administration to escape the shadow of the current challenge before the 9th Circuit, said Simona Grossi, an expert in federal court procedure at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. The new order
Appeals court rules unanimously against Donald Trump travel ban
A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday afternoon unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Donald Trump‘s executive order restricting travel from seven countries, dealing a major legal setback to the new administration’s immigration policy. The panel of three judges from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the lower-court ruling that suspended the ban, allowing previously barred travelers to enter the United States. “We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay,” read Judge Michelle Friedland, Judge William Canby Jr, and Judge Richard Clifton’s 29-page ruling. Trump’s controversial, Jan. 27 executive order barred entry for citizens from seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days and imposed a 120-day halt on all refugees, except refugees from Syria who are barred indefinitely. Trump has since Tweeted a defiant response to the ruling, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” A White House appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.
