Trump seeks to end legal fight with revised travel ban

FILE - In this Feb. 4, 2017, file photo, a woman gives a thumbs up in Los Angeles, Calif., as demonstrators in favor of President Donald Trump's executive order banning travel to the U.S. from seven primarily Muslim nations stand across the street from the Tom Bradley International Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport. President Donald Trump's administration said in court documents on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, it wants an end to the legal fight over its ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations and will instead issue a replacement ban. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon, File)

SAN FRANCISCO —

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration said in court documents on Thursday it wants an end to the legal fight over its ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations and will issue a replacement ban as it strives to protect the nation.

Details of the new proposal were not provided in the filing or at a wide-ranging news conference by Trump. But lawyers for the administration said in the filing that a ban that focuses solely on foreigners who have never entered the U.S. — instead of green card holders already in the U.S. or who have traveled abroad and want to return — would pose no legal difficulties.

“In so doing, the president will clear the way for immediately protecting the country rather than pursuing further, potentially time-consuming litigation,” the filing said.

Trump said at the news conference that a new order would come next week.

“I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country,” he said.

The administration asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold off on making any more decisions related to the lawsuit filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota until the new order is issued and then toss out the decision keeping the ban on hold.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the federal government was “conceding defeat” by saying it does not want a larger appellate panel to review the decision made last week by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. The judges rejected the Trump administration’s claim of presidential authority and questioned its motives in ordering the ban.

The administration attacked the decision in Thursday’s court filing, saying the panel wrongly suggested some foreigners were entitled to constitutional protections and that courts could consider Trump’s campaign statements about a ban.

The lawsuit says the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to the U.S. on the basis of religion and harmed residents, universities and sales tax revenue in the two states. Eighteen other states, including California and New York, supported the challenge.

The appeals court had asked the Trump administration and Washington and Minnesota to file arguments by Thursday on whether a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges should rehear the case.

In his filing with the 9th Circuit, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the ruling by the three-judge panel was consistent with previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, so there was no basis for a review.

Purcell said Trump had campaigned on the promise to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and one week into office issued the order that “radically changed immigration policy” and “unleashed chaos around the world.”

The three-judge panel said the states had raised “serious” allegations that the ban targets Muslims, and the courts could consider statements Trump had made about shutting down Muslim immigration.

The judges also rejected the federal government’s argument that courts do not have the authority to review the president’s immigration and national security decisions.

They said the Trump administration presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — was responsible for a terrorist attack in the U.S.

___

Associated Press writer Martha Bellisle in Seattle contributed to this report.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • 5

    TumbleDry

    He needs some sort of ban to save face. Whatever ban would do.

    With Pakistan being victim of ISIS lower down in the news, I wonder if he will include that country this time.

    Probably not because the US still needs them in fighting Talibans.

    Same for Saudi-Arabia because they not only have oil but invest heavily in the US (almost all petrol dollars come back to the US economy minus a cut from the Saudis).

    Trump promised a muslim ban but went for a few low hanging fruits.

    The ban is not making the country safer. Better control and intelligence does.

  • 4

    Northernlife

    Don the Con master of the spin won't let his ego down lets see what twatster comes up with this time..Maybe he will actually ban Countries that have made attacks on American soil for a start..

  • 5

    Izzy Russell

    Perhaps their placards should read "Make America SMARTER" instead of imploring people to indulge in the false nostalgia that America was somehow greater in the past than it is now...

  • 3

    Northernlife

    @izzy "Make America SMARTER" not going to happen...Trump makes America Dumber...

  • -11

    bass4funk

    "Make America SMARTER" not going to happen...Trump makes America Dumber...

    If that's true, then it was a good thing we didn't vote for Hillary otherwise we would have been all considered ignoramuses.

  • 3

    dcog9065

    I thought he was going to be winning constantly? All we've seen is disgrace and humiliating thrashings. How embarrassing and emasculating!

  • 5

    Northernlife

    @bass4funk If that's true, then it was a good thing we didn't vote for Hillary otherwise we would have been all considered ignoramuses...LOL funny you say that because that is obviously what Trump supporters are..

  • -10

    elephant200

    TRUMP speaks for U.S.

    Yes, thats right! He has good guts! Four years later that slogan should be: TRUMP speaks for the world!

    I wish you good luck Mr. President although I am not a U.S. citizen

  • 5

    Northernlife

    @elephant200 TRUMP speaks for the world! Maybe your World definitely not mine..Oh I hear he is giving green cards to Non US Citizens that are hugeee fans..He has good guts!Yeah I did notice his guts are sticking out a bit must be all those Trump steaks and burgers he has been eating..

  • 4

    SuperLib

    Of course he changed it. His first proposal wasn't legal.

  • 4

    viking68

    Trump doesn't litigate. He capitulates

    So much for the tough guy "see you in Court" talk.

    Trump could not stand another humiliating loss. Maybe he should have listened to the acting DoJ secretary instead of firing her.

    Or better yet, he should have asked the DOJ how to write a legal EO instead of asking Giuliani and Bannon.

  • 3

    inkochi

    Sadly, Trump is within his rights to make another Executive Order. However after last time, any order he makes will be under lots more scrutiny.

    A bit like a tom cat arriving at your back door to show off the dead rat he has caught - again. But this time you are expecting it.

    @Viking68 - I concur that doing something properly is a good idea. Then there is the nature of what Trump wanted done - that is the dead rat I am talking about.

  • -9

    Blacklabel

    Good, he can just remove all the shiny things that are distracting liberal judges so that they have nothing to focus on except the actual law. The actual law as written gives the executive branch the power to do what he has intended to do all along.

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    its still not going to work. no matter what, people will oppose the ban. And good on them for doing so.

  • -11

    Blacklabel

    It wasnt a ban last time and it will be made even clearer this time that its not a ban. Just need a way to confirm who these people are and why they want to come to America instead of somewhere else that is also available to them. I know people want to come to America, but do they want to be American? thats the question

  • 1

    Strangerland

    It wasnt a ban last time

    Trump: If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!

    Seems you didn't get the playbook from your coach.

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    Just need a way to confirm who these people are and why they want to come to America instead of somewhere else that is also available to them.

    If THAT were true he wouldn't be banning green card holders, which is what he tried to do.

  • -4

    Blacklabel

    He explained that. It cant be a Muslim BAN if 80 percent of Muslims are unaffected. People said that over and over for like a week. But the media wouldnt stop calling it a ban anyway every time they talked about it, so he just let them call it that and moved on. Otherwise he would still be explaining for the 1000th time why it was not, is not and cannot be a BAN instead of solving the urgent national security issues.

  • 0

    Strangerland

    I just gave you a quote where he called it a ban. Everything after that is just trying to backtrack.

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    Didn't you read Stranger's post from DT's quote? HE HIMSELF called it a ban. A hot dog is a hot dog EVEN IF you call it a tube steak. Calling something by a different name doesn't change it.

  • 2

    viking68

    @Viking68 - I concur that doing something properly is a good idea. Then there is the nature of what Trump wanted done - that is the dead rat I am talking about.

    Agreed with the rat, I've always felt that the Ban (which apparently is not a ban) was illegal and only political theater. It looks like the courts also agree.

    If Trump wanted to stop terrorists, he would have focused on countries that have terrorists or a history of exporting terrorism and wrote the EO to address an actual and identified threat.

    He (Bannon) only wanted to show their base how strong Trump was against "Muslims" and that Trump was fulfilling a campaign promise.

  • -5

    Blacklabel

    Donald J. TrumpVerified account ‏@realDonaldTrump Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

    this is him on 1 Feb saying that he doesnt care what people call it, so basically he isnt going to spend any more time arguing about what a 3 letter word he never wrote in the Executive Order means anymore. Is the word BAN anywhere in anything that was officially signed? The English expression, call it what you want doesnt mean it IS, just means it doesnt matter what you call it. Moving on to take action instead of playing with words, which he did and still is.

  • 2

    Aly Rustom

    Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

    again, why pick on green card holders. You haven't answered that question.

    call it what you want doesnt mean it IS, just means it doesnt matter what you call it. Moving on to take action instead of playing with words

    I didn't call it. He did.

  • -8

    Blacklabel

    He is saying you can call it PURPLE for all he cares, he is focusing on the actions necessary to protect the country.

    Green card holders were inconvenienced for a period of 24 hours or so while they worked out the confusion in communications between the US and every airport in the world on a weekend. This was probably a once in a decade happening and a couple hundred people had the bad timing to be caught up in it.

    It is also my understanding that green cards can be revoked for at least 4 reasons. So I have no problem with green card holders from those 7 countries getting extra scrutiny on the first day of the new policy to make sure they still meet all the requirements to keep it.

    https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-card/can-my-us-green-card-be-revoked/

  • 2

    Strangerland

    this is him on 1 Feb saying that he doesnt care what people call it, so basically he isnt going to spend any more time arguing about what a 3 letter word he never wrote in the Executive Order means anymore. Is the word BAN anywhere in anything that was officially signed? The English expression, call it what you want doesnt mean it IS, just means it doesnt matter what you call it.

    Then why are you so hung up on trying to claim it's not a ban?

  • -6

    Blacklabel

    I also dont care what it is called. I just expressed my satisfaction that the policy will be rewritten. In such a way that the liberal judges will not have anything other than the actual law to use when they try to deny it again.

  • 4

    Strangerland

    I also dont care what it is called.

    If you don't care, then why did you bother to try to claim it wasn't a ban? If you don't care, there would be no need to try to disprove that which others were saying.

    In such a way that the liberal judges will not have anything other than the actual law to use when they try to deny it again.

    That's all they had the first time.

    But, as long as he writes it within what the law allows, there shouldn't be any issue - not that that will stop some from having one.

  • 0

    Northernlife

    @blacklabel well he might just want to focus on the Countries that have track records of their citizens committing acts of terrorsim on US soil but you probaly would not have an idea about that anyhow.Trump is the worse thing that has ever happened to America well the Modern day World for that matter sooner he is gone the better..

  • 2

    plasticmonkey

    The English expression, call it what you want doesnt mean it IS, just means it doesnt matter what you call it.

    What's the expression in Russian?

  • 3

    lostrune2

    As predicted, seems Trump is conceding he lost on the first immigration Executive Order and diverting his resources to a new EO that's likely not hastily written plus vetted by the Justice Dept, Homeland Security, lawmakers, etc. that may withstand Constitutional muster and challenges

    Even Presidents are limited by the Constitution

    Checks and balances works, folks

    At least that's something to be proud about and hopefully calm everyone a bit

  • -4

    bass4funk

    I also dont care what it is called. I just expressed my satisfaction that the policy will be rewritten. In such a way that the liberal judges will not have anything other than the actual law to use when they try to deny it again.

    Trump is being advised by a bunch of lawyers on how to properly execute this new short duration ban that will make it harder for liberal judges to contest, that will be the smart and best option to continue the extreme vetting process.

    https://youtu.be/zEYcJjyDyh8

  • 0

    theFu

    A restriction is not a ban. Restricting access to green card holders and citizens was stupid. Restricting access to frequent fliers was stupid too. They have a clear history of travel and NOT causing harm anywhere.

    I don't believe in preventing/hassling all the people wanting to visit the USA to prevent the 0.000000000000001% of bad people coming is very smart. Kinda need to let everyone in, unless there is proof of prior bad actions anywhere else.

    Fairly certain that has been the filter applied the last 20+ yrs. 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from UAE, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon. So, how do you stop people like that at the border?

    Also, just saw that ZERO refugees in the USA have killed people in any terrorist attacks here. There were 13 injuries from a Somalian man last fall.

    Other attacks have been carried out by US citizens, 2nd generation, and travel to Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia seems to set off the planning.

    How can CBP know the difference between a simple family visit for a few weeks and someone going to become a terrorist? That seems to be the $64,000 question. I don't have an answer, but pissing off the other 99.999999999999% of travelers isn't helping.

    But I'd be happier if they did ban all religious people from entry. They are clearly unstable if belief in an imaginary friend is needed as a central part of their lives.

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    Green card holders were inconvenienced for a period of 24 hours or so while they worked out the confusion in communications between the US and every airport in the world on a weekend. This was probably a once in a decade happening and a couple hundred people had the bad timing to be caught up in it.

    Wow. What a way to gloss over everything.

    It is also my understanding that green cards can be revoked for at least 4 reasons. So I have no problem with green card holders from those 7 countries getting extra scrutiny on the first day of the new policy to make sure they still meet all the requirements to keep it. https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-green-card/can-my-us-green-card-be-revoked/

    None of which these green card holders are guilty of.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Shouldn't his review of the vetting process be in full swing? After 120 day I thought he said we wouldn't need his ban anymore.

  • 1

    Madverts

    They're probably working around the clock on that health care replacement scheme to be fair Super.

Login to leave a comment

OR
EMBA Special Lecture: Operations Modeling

EMBA Special Lecture: Operations Modeling

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Special Offers

グローバルに
活躍したいあなたへ
外資系転職

バイリンガル人材の
ための求人サイト

見てみる

More in World

View all

View all

Find Your
Apartment
in Japan

10,000’s of properties available today!

Search