Federal attorneys argue Trump travel ban 'substantially different' from original
- Author: Ernesto Newman Mar 16, 2017,
Mar 16, 2017, 0:31
Robart also is overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state.
And at 5:00pm Eastern Wednesday, a Seattle-based federal judge will hear a request to block the revised directive the president signed last week.
A federal judge in Hawaii has also scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the revised ban. Balderas's brief contends that the new executive order remains unconstitutional despite the changes.
The order, which Trump issued March 6, would prohibit US entry for 90 days by anyone from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
In case you are wondering, here is how the two bans differ from each other: The first sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim-majority nations. Earlier this week, the new travel ban survived its first legal challenge when a federal judge rejected an effort by the states of Washington, New York and OR to apply the stay on the first travel ban to the new order. So are all immigrants from Iraq.
Ferguson acknowledged the changes to the order but said it still "bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries", including relatives of US citizens and students who have been admitted to state universities and people who might seek work at schools and businesses. For example, White House adviser Stephen Miller noted that any changes to the first executive order would be "mostly minor, technical differences", and that "f$3 undamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcomes for the country".
By filing an amended version of Washington's lawsuit, as opposed to a new lawsuit, the six states are able to keep the same trial judge.
Despite Trumps claim that the revisions would satisfy the courts previous objections, the states lawyers noted that presidential adviser Stephen Miller said February 21 that the new order would have mostly minor technical differences but the same basic policy outcome as the first order. "The concerns relied upon by the states in bringing this action are no longer at issue".
Jonathan Hafetz is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law.
"To Muslims-including those victimized by or fighting against ISIS-it will send a message that reinforces the propaganda... that falsely claim the United States is at war with Islam", read the letter by former government officials and experts. And I thought it was very, very unfair.
Over 50 technology companies have signed onto an amicus brief opposing the new iteration of President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFBI to brief Graham, Whitehouse on Trump warrants: Graham Airbnb, Lyft and over 50 tech companies push back on Trump's latest travel ban What President Trump can learn from Ike on Mexico MORE's executive order barring foreign nationals from six primarily Muslim countries from entering the U.S. U.S. District Judge James Robart issued the nationwide ban on Trump's first travel ban and is handling this challenge, as well. While it was based on due process claims that may now be substantially weaker, some experts believe it may have set some important precedents.
Critics say the new order is still essentially a ban on Muslims coming to the United States and therefore unconstitutional because it singles out people of a certain religion for discrimination.
Questioned about tweets that Trump sent and statements he made during the presidential campaign in which he promised to enact a "Muslim ban", Wall said: "there is a difference between a president and a candidate".
What may also become a factor is a draft Department of Homeland Security memo that, according to the Associated Press, reported that citizenship in a country is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threat.
The order also poses new concerns, including by requiring relevant federal agencies to collect and publish information about convictions of terrorism-related offenses, government charges of terrorism, and gender-based violence against women committed by foreign nationals, while containing no corresponding publication requirement for USA citizens. "The states have also filed a motion seeking to block Trump's new order, but the judge hasn't indicated yet whether he plans to hold a hearing on that request". Unlike the original order, it says people with visas won't be affected and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities. They argued that Trump's amended order, like his first one, discriminates against Muslims. Pierce, "so it will continue be an issue".
Under the USA legal system, a federal judge can suspend all or part of the Trump executive order, with nationwide effect - which Robart did the first time around and which the state plaintiffs hope he will do again.