Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump’s new travel ban may prove legally more durable than his 2017 predecessor, as he prepares for a court battle where immigrant advocates are not expected to win.
Trump’s latest travel ban expands the policies he imposed during his first term, targeting the majority of seven Muslim countries. This is a measure upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling. Like its predecessor, the new order relies on the same immigration law, but this time it could fall on a stiffer legal basis.
Attorney Neema Ramani, a former California-based federal prosecutor specializing in immigration, told Fox News Digital that she expected immigration rights groups to appeal for Trump’s new order.
“But they’re going to lose,” he said. Because it’s stronger than the last ban.”
Trump travels to us from several countries to “block dangerous foreign actors”
Donald Trump will speak at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago Residence in Palm Beach, Florida on December 16, 2024 (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Ramani argued that the final ban violated religious freedom because he chose Muslims. This new one included “all kinds of countries.” Trump has imposed full or partial bans on 19 countries, including the majority Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Iran, as well as the majority of non-Muslim countries such as Haiti, Venezuela, Eritrea and Burundi.
“No Trump says he’s imposing a Muslim ban. During the campaign, and even after he was elected, even after it was used against him, the Supreme Court added that Trump this time was “slightly different,” and that “better audiences” were also “better audiences.”
The Trump vs Hawaii 5-4 split came before Trump fell along the ideological line and Trump appointees, Judge Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, were confirmed to the bench.
The Supreme Court has historically given the president a wide latitude to foreign policy and national security, but in 2017 opposition judges argued that the ban amounted to an unjust religious animus pose as national security.
“The court’s decision leaves the policy openly and explicitly initially touted as “a complete and complete closure of Muslims entering the United States.”
Supreme Court discusses Trump’s restrictions on Trump’s citizenship and enforcement of national injunctions
Activists protest June 26, 2019 in Washington, DC (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images) on the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Trump’s administration’s restrictions on travel to the US, primarily Muslim countries
Democrats and immigration rights critics argue that Trump’s new declaration is rooted in prejudice.
Sarah Mehta, deputy director of immigration policy and government for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Fox News Digital in a statement that he believes it is “designed to further separate legal immigration routes under the false guise of national security.”
“We saw the confusion that continued from the first Trump administration’s Muslim ban, and this executive order is built solely on terrifying governance to target people based solely on nationality or religious beliefs,” Mehta said.
Trump said the country had an unreliable screening and review process and declared restrictions needed to prevent terrorist attacks and mitigate other public safety risks. Additionally, some people were either exaggerating the enormous visa events or uncooperative when it came to accepting citizens from the United States, Trump said.
Ilya Somin, one of the lawyers challenging Trump’s drastic tariffs in the U.S. International Trade Court, wrote in the Supreme Court’s advance ruling that “it is “nearly impossible” to challenge this new travel ban on the grounds that it is motivated by ethnic or other prejudices.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Somin has raised the possibility of challenging the ban on other reasons, including secular doctrines that put limits on the power that Congress can transfer to administrators. He pointed out as an example of two courts that have so far avoided the president’s attempts to bypass Congress and put tariffs into his own hands.
However, Somin has admitted that the travel ban presents a higher hurdle than a tariff case. The Constitution explicitly gives parliament power over tariffs, but Somin said it “doesn’t make it clear” as “which sector of the government will have jurisdiction over immigration restrictions.”
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, covering the Department of Justice and legal affairs. Email story tips to Ashley.oliver@fox.com.
Source link
