Trump travel ban 2.0 is built to survive court challenges, experts say
Trump's latest travel ban expands on the policy he imposed during his first term targeting seven Muslim-majority nations, a measure the Supreme Court upheld in a 5-4 ruling. Like its predecessor, the new order relies on the same immigration statutes but may rest on firmer legal ground this time.
Attorney Neama Rahmani, a California-based former federal prosecutor who specializes in immigration, told Fox News Digital he anticipated that immigration rights groups would likely sue over Trump's new order.
"But they'll lose," he said, because "it's stronger than the last ban."
Trump Bans Travel To Us From Several Countries To 'Block Dangerous Foreign Actors'
Rahmani pointed to allegations that the last ban violated religious liberties because it singled out Muslims. This new one included "all sorts of countries," Rahmani said. Trump imposed full or partial bans on 19 countries in his new proclamation, including Muslim-majority countries like Afghanistan and Iran but also non-Muslim-majority countries like Haiti, Venezuela, Eritrea and Burundi.
Read On The Fox News App
"You don't have Trump saying that he's imposing a Muslim ban. Those words during the campaign, and even after he was elected, were used against him," Rahmani said, adding that the Supreme Court is also "slightly different" and a "better audience" for Trump this time around.
The 5-4 split in Trump v. Hawaii fell along ideological lines and came before Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, both Trump appointees, were confirmed to the bench.
Although the Supreme Court has historically given presidents wide latitude over foreign policy and national security, in 2017 the dissenting justices argued the ban amounted to unjustified religious animus disguised as national security.
"The Court's decision … leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns," the dissent read.
Supreme Court To Debate Trump Restrictions On Birthright Citizenship And Enforcement Of Nationwide Injunctions
Democrat lawmakers and immigration rights critics have argued that Trump's new proclamation is rooted in bigotry.
Sarah Mehta, deputy director of policy and government affairs for immigration at the American Civil Liberties Union, told Fox News Digital in a statement that she believed it was designed to "further eviscerate lawful immigration pathways under the false guise of national security."
"We saw the chaos that ensued from the first Trump administration's Muslim ban, and this executive order will only build on that reign of terror to target people solely based on their nationality or religious beliefs," Mehta said.
Trump said in his proclamation that the restrictions were necessary to prevent terrorist attacks and mitigate other public safety risks because the countries had unreliable screening and vetting processes. Additionally, some had a high occurrence of visa overstays or were uncooperative when it came to accepting their citizens back from the United States, Trump said.
Ilya Somin, who is one of the attorneys challenging Trump's sweeping tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade, wrote in an op-ed that it would be "nearly impossible to challenge this new travel ban on the grounds that it is motivated by ethnic or other bigotry" because of the Supreme Court's prior ruling.
Somin floated the possibility of challenging the ban on other grounds, including the nondelegation doctrine, which puts limits on how much power Congress can transfer to the executive branch. He noted as an example that two courts have thus far shunned the president's attempts to bypass Congress and take tariffs into his own hands.
However, Somin conceded that the travel ban presents a higher hurdle than the tariffs case. While the Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over tariffs, Somin said, it "does not clearly" say which branch of government has jurisdiction over immigration restrictions.Original article source: Trump travel ban 2.0 is built to survive court challenges, experts say
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
House breaks record for longest-ever vote — again
House Republicans broke the record Wednesday for the lower chamber's longest vote in history — for the second time in as many weeks. Why it matters: It's the latest example of Johnson's strategy for dealing with his razor-thin majority — holding votes open for hours as he tries to sway opponents in his own party. Wednesday's record-setting vote was on a resolution setting the terms of debate on several measures, including the GENIUS Act, which would establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers. That broke the previous record, set two weeks ago to the day amid grueling negotiations over President Trump's " big, beautiful bill." The big picture; Before two weeks ago, the previous record was set in 2021, when the House took seven hours and six minutes on a procedural vote related to then-President Biden's Build Back Better legislation. This was Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La) second attempt after the House floor ground to a halt Tuesday when the chamber rejected the procedural vote on the first try. Johnson is facing demands from hardliners to combine the GENIUS Act with two other crypto bills the chamber is considering this week. That would force the Senate to reconsider the legislation, likely leading to significant delays. Between the lines: Wednesday's revote follows a meeting Trump said he held late Tuesday in the Oval Office with opponents — after which he declared victory, apparently prematurely.
Los Angeles Times
14 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Gov. Newsom criticizes Trump's use of National Guard after removal of some troops
A day after the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of half of the National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles, Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized President Trump for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to appear 'tough' by punishing immigrants. Newsom also accused the president of trying to preserve Republican power in Washington by pressuring Texas to redraw congressional districts to elect GOP representatives. The governor repeated a threat to launch a similar effort in California to favor Democrats. 'Everything has changed, and it's changing in real time,' Newsom told reporters Wednesday. 'I'm not going to be the guy that said I could have, would have, should have. I'm not going to be passive at this moment. I'm not going to look at my kids in the eyes and say I was a little timid.' The comments came at a news conference outside Downey Memorial Christian Church, where Newsom met with the Rev. Tanya Lopez, the senior pastor, to discuss an incident in June where she watched as plainclothes federal agents swarmed and detained a constituent in the parking lot of her church. Newsom criticized the administration's immigration crackdown, saying its only goal was to terrorize families and communities — not to pursue violent criminals, which Newsom said he would support. Newsom said the crackdown was also harming family-owned businesses as immigrants who work and shop at stores stay home out of fear. The governor called the president's decision to deploy about 4,000 National Guardsmen part of Trump's 'rule of cruelty' and said the decision to remove half the troops came after the Pentagon realized the absurdity of its deployment. The government wasted of hundreds of millions of dollars on the deployment, Newsom said. He added that the 'utilization rate' of the National Guard troops was only about 5%, meaning only that percentage was actively engaged with duties while the rest were held in reserve. 'They're a solution right now in search of a problem,' he said of the National Guard. The move to send home some of the troops comes after a legal battle over whether the administration could deploy the troops. A federal appeals court ruled that the president had broad — though not 'unreviewable' — authority to deploy the military in American cities. State and local leaders said the National Guard was not needed to deal with protests over immigration raids that have led to around 3,000 arrests. On a separate issue, Newsom repeated the threat that California could redraw its electoral maps to help Democrats pick up more congressional seats in response to Trump's call for Texas and other states to redistrict to benefit Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans currently hold power in both the Senate and House of Representatives, which have been instrumental in enacting the president's policy agenda, including cuts to healthcare and food assistance for Americans in need. 'They can't win by the traditional games, so they want to change the game,' Newsom said. 'We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of state voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature. Newsom said the California Legislature could pass a bill in the regular session or in a special session that places a proposed constitutional amendment before voters to change state redistricting laws through a special election held in a tight window before the 2026 primaries. The governor said he's also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves now with a two-thirds vote and avoid going to the ballot. 'That is an option that is also being considered and both of those are being advanced in real time, not only with members of the Legislature, but others that are interested, because they feel the same pressures I do about the existential threat of what Donald Trump and some of these Republican states are trying to do,' Newsom said.
Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
Here are the 3rd-countries where the Trump admin is deporting migrants
Expelling migrants to third-countries that are not their place of origin is becoming a cornerstone of President Trump's deportation strategy. The big picture: The administration's increasing number of third-country deportation agreements showcases a dogged desire to pursue every possible avenue to fulfill Trump's promise to deport record numbers of noncitizens. Catch up quick: The Trump administration restarted deportation flights after the Supreme Court ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security could resume sending migrants to countries that were not their place of origin. The decision put a lower court order that required the government to give immigrants adequate time to challenge their deportations on hold. State of play: Border czar Tom Homan said the U.S. aims to sign third-country deportation agreements with "many countries" to support the administration's deportation plans. The administration has either approached or plans to approach roughly 51 countries to accept non-citizen deportations from the U.S., per a June report New York Times report. At least two of those countries, Eswatini and South Sudan in Africa, have accepted flights from the U.S. since the report came out. The DHS did not immediately respond to Axios' Wednesday evening request for comment on how many of the countries have been approached. Thought bubble via Axios' Dave Lawler: The administration has reportedly discussed safe third-country agreements with many countries for which the "safe" description is very much in question. Take Libya or South Sudan, both of which have been wracked by instability and violence for years. Several other countries involved in these deals are among the poorest in the world. The prospect of deporting migrants thousands of miles away to unfamiliar and often unstable countries has raised alarm among human rights groups, but the idea has strong support within the administration. Here are the countries that have already accepted deportees who are not their citizens: Eswatini Five migrants from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen were deported to the tiny African nation of Eswatini on Tuesday, the DHS announced. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on X that the flight was carrying individuals who had been convicted of a range of crimes that included murder, homicide, and child rape. El Salvador The Trump administration sent at least 238 Venezuelan migrants to a notorious El Salvadorian maximum security prison under the Alien Enemies Act in March, claiming that they were terrorists and members of a violent gang. By the numbers: An April CBS News report found 75% of the migrants sent to the prison had no criminal record. Mexico Mexico has received roughly 6,000 non-Mexicans from the U.S. as of late April, per Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum said the non-Mexicans her country was accepting for "humanitarian reasons" comprise a small number of the nearly 39,000 migrants the U.S. has deported to Mexico since Jan. 20. Guatemala Guatemalan President Bernardo Arevalo announced in February that his country had agreed to accept third-country nationals from the United States and would be ramping up deportation flights from the U.S. by 40%. Arevalo told NBC News that the agreement was not supposed to provide a pathway for people to seek asylum in Guatemala. Rather, the country would serve as a pit stop in the process of sending people back to their home countries. Costa Rica Costa Rica accepted roughly 200 third-country nationals from two different U.S. flights through the end of February, per a May Human Rights Watch report. On the planes were at least 81 children and two pregnant women. What they're saying: After announcing the expulsion agreement, Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves said his country was helping its "economically powerful brother to the north." Costa Rican officials have said the U.S. will cover the costs of the deported people's stay in the country, and that the arrangement was expected to be a temporary stop in the repatriation process. Panama The U.S. has deported hundreds of people to Panama since February as part of a deal for the country serve as a "bridge" while the U.S. bears the financial costs, per AP. The migrants are from countries including Iran, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Rwanda The U.S. paid the Rwandan government $100,000 to accept an Iraqi citizen in April and agreed to take 10 more deportees, the New York Times reported. Negotiations reached over the Iraqi citizen "proved the concept for a new removal program, according to the report. South Sudan The U.S. deported eight men to South Sudan in July, after a legal battle diverted their deportation flight to Djibouti for several weeks. Some of the men deported were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam. Kosovo This landlocked Balkan nation in Europe agreed to host 50 noncitizen deportees from the U.S. in June. The deal would allow noncitizens to be "temporarily relocated" before being sent back to their home country. The intrigue: Kosovo reportedly agreed to accept the noncitizens from the U.S. in the hope that the administration will continue to lobby other nations to recognize the small country's independence.
