According to legal experts, even though President Donald Trump's Sunday announcement of adding 8 more countries to his previous ban list has won fresh criticism from the immigrant and civil rights groups as unlawful but it now stands a better chance of holding up in court. Trump called the new presidential proclamation as necessary to block terrorist or public safety threats. New travel ban covers Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, Chad and North Korea as well as certain government officials from Venezuela.
Trump had first placed a travel ban in January; then revised it to a temporary travel ban on March 6th.Targeting six Muslim-majority countries, the ban which expired on Sunday, has sparked international outrage and was blocked by federal courts as unconstitutional for discrimination or a violation of immigration law. The US Supreme Court, in June approved its limited version while the justices examined its legality.
The proclamation would start from October 18th and would probably face less legal attack as it comes after months-long analysis of foreign vetting procedures by US officials. It is also less aligned to Trump's campaign-trail statements which are deemed as biased against Muslims by some courts. Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the University Of Virginia School Of Law stated in an email that the policy reflected a considered, expert judgment rather than a prejudice or a desire to fulfill a campaign promise.
While the government's claim of the president having broad authority in immigration and national security matters but contesters to the March 6th ban accused him of foul of the US Constitution's bar on favoring one religion over another. They strengthened it by Trump's campaign quote of completely barring Muslims from entering the US. Following Sunday's proclamation, representatives of Hawaii, New York and California attorneys general stated of reviewing the new restrictions while many advocacy organizations denounced it as similar as still a Muslim ban but with three additional countries; Chad , North Korea and Venezuela. However, these arguments might not hold much water in court.
The previous ban focused on Muslim-majority nations Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan but Sunday's restrictions include North Korea and Venezuela and excludes Sudan altogether as well as it permits some travelers from Somalia and Iran to enter the US The review also scanned each country's ability to issue reliable electronic passports and share security risk data with the US. It showed 47 countries still with problems and 40 already implementing improvements. This includes 11 countries who have agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists. Margo Schlanger, a University of Michigan Law School professor stated that the review attenuates the link between the president's alleged bias and the policy.
Arguments for the March 5th ban including Muslim discrimination was scheduled with the Supreme Court on October 10th but Sunday's proclamation may skip its need altogether. While religious discrimination charges could be tough to place, challengers may claim of the ban violating the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which forbids the government from discriminating based on an individual's nationality when issuing visas. Jeffrey Gorsky, the former chief of the legal advisory division at the US State Department's Visa Office felt that the ban might seem as overly broad as the banned countries' people do not show any evidence of adverse affect on US interests.