The Supreme Court cancels a travel
THREE months after the Supreme Court gave  the Trump administration  a provisional green-light to implement  its  second try at a ban on travel from several majority-Muslim countries  the justices have scrapped a hearing scheduled for October 10th at which the order would have faced a final legal reckoning. The parties in  Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project  and Trump v Hawaii have until October 5th to send new briefs to the justices outlining where the litigation should go next  but in the meantime  the cases have been wiped off the argument calendar.
 Donald Trumpâs  March 6th order banning all travel from six countriesâIran  Libya  Somalia  Sudan  Syria  and Yemenâwas not received well by the judiciary. Appeals courts concluded in the spring that the restrictions  along with a ban on refugees  seemed to violate the First Amendment or exceed presidential power under federal immigration law. On June 26th  the Supreme Court issued an injunction staying those rulings  saying Mr Trumpâs ban could go into effect to block foreigners except for those claiming relatives or formal connections in America. The justices agreed to hear the full case in the autumn.
Over the weekend  when  Mr Trump  issued a new presidential proclamation  the question of mootness took on particular significance. Rather than just let the order fizzle  or re-up it as-is   Mr Trump  issued a revised ban that arguably satisfied  his  recently-tweeted preference for âlarger  tougher and more specificâ travel restrictions. One country  Sudan  came off the verboten list  while three were added: North Korea  Chad and Venezuela. At first glance  these edits gave the new order a more evenhanded veneer: three new countries on three different continents  only one of which (Chad) is Muslim-majority. But on only slightly closer inspection  the changes were rather minor. North Korea  the regime  Mr Trump  has been threatening with complete destruction (and which has been vehemently returning that rhetoric)  does not exactly supply a steady stream of tourists to America. The restrictions on Venezuela are limited to a handful of government officials and their families.
Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the refinements to the travel ban do not ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½obfuscate the real fact that the administration's order is still a Muslim banâ.  Mr Trump âs âoriginal sin of targeting Muslims cannot be curedâ  Mr Romero says  âby throwing other countries onto his enemies listâ. The administration insists that non-Muslim countries were added to the list for legitimate reasonsâand not to make the order less legally fraught. In a âresponse to queriesâ   the administration answers the key questionââIsnât this just a way to ban Muslims from entering the country?ââthis way: âReligion was not a factor...The goal is to enhance information sharing practices in order to keep Americans safe and to improve overall global securityâ. And then  in a larger font and with a typo  this hastily penned addendum: âIn addition  both Muslin [sic] and Non-Muslim majority countries were identifiedâ.
Whatever the motive behind the tweaks  they make the proclamation less likely to provoke unfavourable rulings from federal judges. The legal challenges to the earlier travel bans were never open-and-shut: despite the plaintiffsâ success at the district and circuit court levels  the Supreme Courtâs five-justice conservative majority would have been difficult to persuade that  Mr Trumpâs  order was an illegitimate exercise of presidential animus toward Muslims. The revisions might be mere window-dressing  but given the latitude presidents enjoy in matters of immigration and foreign policy  they may be  all Mr Trump  needs to defend  his  new travel ban once the lawsuits start flying.
THREE months after the Supreme Court gave   [TGT] a provisional green-light to implement   [TGT]   second try at a ban on travel from several majority-Muslim countries  the justices have scrapped a hearing scheduled for October 10th at which the order would have faced a final legal reckoning. The parties in  Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project  and Trump v Hawaii have until October 5th to send new briefs to the justices outlining where the litigation should go next  but in the meantime  the cases have been wiped off the argument calendar.
 Donald Trumpâs  March 6th order banning all travel from six countriesâIran  Libya  Somalia  Sudan  Syria  and Yemenâwas not received well by the judiciary. Appeals courts concluded in the spring that the restrictions  along with a ban on refugees  seemed to violate the First Amendment or exceed presidential power under federal immigration law. On June 26th  the Supreme Court issued an injunction staying those rulings  saying Mr Trumpâs ban could go into effect to block foreigners except for those claiming relatives or formal connections in America. The justices agreed to hear the full case in the autumn.
Over the weekend  when   [TGT] issued a new presidential proclamation  the question of mootness took on particular significance. Rather than just let the order fizzle  or re-up it as-is    [TGT] issued a revised ban that arguably satisfied   [TGT]   recently-tweeted preference for âlarger  tougher and more specificâ travel restrictions. One country  Sudan  came off the verboten list  while three were added: North Korea  Chad and Venezuela. At first glance  these edits gave the new order a more evenhanded veneer: three new countries on three different continents  only one of which (Chad) is Muslim-majority. But on only slightly closer inspection  the changes were rather minor. North Korea  the regime   [TGT] has been threatening with complete destruction (and which has been vehemently returning that rhetoric)  does not exactly supply a steady stream of tourists to America. The restrictions on Venezuela are limited to a handful of government officials and their families.
Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the refinements to the travel ban do not ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½obfuscate the real fact that the administration's order is still a Muslim banâ.  Mr Trump âs âoriginal sin of targeting Muslims cannot be curedâ  Mr Romero says  âby throwing other countries onto his enemies listâ. The administration insists that non-Muslim countries were added to the list for legitimate reasonsâand not to make the order less legally fraught. In a âresponse to queriesâ   the administration answers the key questionââIsnât this just a way to ban Muslims from entering the country?ââthis way: âReligion was not a factor...The goal is to enhance information sharing practices in order to keep Americans safe and to improve overall global securityâ. And then  in a larger font and with a typo  this hastily penned addendum: âIn addition  both Muslin [sic] and Non-Muslim majority countries were identifiedâ.
Whatever the motive behind the tweaks  they make the proclamation less likely to provoke unfavourable rulings from federal judges. The legal challenges to the earlier travel bans were never open-and-shut: despite the plaintiffsâ success at the district and circuit court levels  the Supreme Courtâs five-justice conservative majority would have been difficult to persuade that  Mr Trumpâs  order was an illegitimate exercise of presidential animus toward Muslims. The revisions might be mere window-dressing  but given the latitude presidents enjoy in matters of immigration and foreign policy  they may be   [TGT] needs to defend   [TGT]   new travel ban once the lawsuits start flying.