The Department of Justice is weighing whether
or not to appeal a decision issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
deny reinstating President Donald Trump's immigration order while its legality
is established, according to multiple reports Friday.
That's because the White House is apparently
rewriting the controversial executive order which temporarily bans immigration
from six predominantly Muslim countries and permanently from Syria so that it
has a better chance of withstanding legal challenges.
Trump tweeted on Thursday night that he
intends to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision: "SEE YOU IN COURT,"
he wrote shortly after the judges issued their 29-page opinion. But he wavered
on that pronouncement Friday, saying he "very well could" issue a
"brand new order" next week.
Legal experts say rewriting the order is
likely a much better option for the Trump administration than sticking with the
"extreme vetting" order in its current form, which would likely
result in more litigation.Legal experts say rewriting the order is likely a
much better option for the Trump administration than sticking with the
"extreme vetting" order in its current form, which would likely
result in more litigation.
"There are a variety of things the
government could do to help their case. It's just a matter of how much they're
willing to change the executive order," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a
professor of immigration law at Cornell University.
Yale-Loehr said that the order's most
controversial sections 3(c) and the near entirety of section 5, which were the
subject of a lawsuit brought by Washington and Minnesota against the government
that ultimately resulted in the temporary restraining order (TRO) placed on the
ban would either have to be changed significantly or removed entirely if the
administration wanted to shield itself from further litigation.
Section 3(c) of the immigration order
stipulates that "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States
of aliens from" Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen
"would be detrimental to the interests of the United States," and
that Trump would "hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants
and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this
order." The original order did not list the countries specifically but
referred to those targeted in an Obama-era visa-waiver policy, the Department
of Homeland Security later clarified.
The nationwide enforcement of Section 3(c)
was restrained "in its entirety" last week by US District Judge James
Robart, who sided with the states' argument that the order caused
"significant and ongoing harm" to "substantial numbers of
people, to the detriment of the States."
When Robart asked the government lawyer,
Michelle Bennett, if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the
seven counties listed in Trump's order since 9/11, Bennett said she didn't
know.
"The answer is none," Robart said,
according to Reuters. "You're here arguing we have to protect from these
individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that." Even
after appealing the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit, the government
still had difficulty proving that citizens from the seven countries posed an
elevated terror risk above others.
"The proceedings have been moving very
fast," the Department of Justice lawyer, August Flentje, told Ninth
Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland when she asked whether the government had any
evidence connecting the seven nations targeted by the order to terrorism.
0 Comments