The Supreme Court was set to hear extended arguments over the Constitutionality of President Trump’s revised travel ban after the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts blocked its enforcement, then the nation’s highest Court overruled those courts. The revised ban was allowed to be enacted with some minor restrictions, full arguments to be heard in October.
However, since that initial ruling during the summer, things have changed: the revised travel ban expired on Sunday September 24, and a new order was issued. Hence, the controversy surrounding that order is now moot, as it no longer is effective, CBS News is reporting.
The Supreme Court has removed the travel ban case from its October calendar, as it considers whether the case is now moot, CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford reports. Once it has reviewed the supplemental briefing, it could reschedule arguments or simply dismiss the original case.
Briefs from both sides are due on Oct. 5.
The case over the revised ban will likely not be heard, as it is no longer exists. Making a Supreme Court issue out of a policy that no longer exists would be pointless.
Replacing that revised travel ban, the Trump Administration has officially implemented new travel restrictions from terror-prone countries as of Sunday, in accordance with new guidelines set up over the past several months.
On Friday Sept. 22, we reported that the administration was planning on releasing a new order, and that certain updates to the list of nations, and the requirements for entry would be put into action.
The President announced the new travel guidelines via his social media, and detailed the order on WhiteHouse.gov.
Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.https://t.co/KJ886okyfC
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017
The nations now listed in the order are Chad, Iran, Libya, North, Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The Department of Homeland Security reviewed approximately 17 nations’ vetting procedures, and determined that these nations did not have adequate anti-terrorism functions in their vetting apparatuses.
The Washington Free Beacon reports that while new countries have been added to the list, Iraq was taken off from the total prohibition list. Iraqis seeking to come to the United States will face additional scrutiny, but will not be generally prohibited from entry.
There are exemptions from the order though, including those who are lawful permanent residents, anyone admitted on or after the date the order is effective, foreign nationals with valid travel documents recognized by the United States, those with diplomatic visas, and those with refugee or asylum status.
Adding non-Islamic countries to the list is an eyebrow-raising change, though.
The addition of North Korea and Venezuela broadens the restrictions from the original, mostly Muslim-majority list.
An administration official, briefing reporters on a conference call, acknowledged that the number of North Koreans now traveling to the United States was very low.
Rights group Amnesty International USA condemned the measures.
“Just because the original ban was especially outrageous does not mean we should stand for yet another version of government-sanctioned discrimination,” it said in a statement.
“It is senseless and cruel to ban whole nationalities of people who are often fleeing the very same violence that the U.S. government wishes to keep out. This must not be normalized.”
The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement the addition of North Korea and Venezuela “doesn’t obfuscate the real fact that the administration’s order is still a Muslim ban.”
Of course, the ACLU’s designation of the order is simply nonsensical. If it really was a Muslim ban, the President would have also included Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, etc…
The order targets terror prone countries not simply because they are Islamic, but because of inadequate vetting procedures that terrorists do seek to exploit. Addressing that is a rational and legitimate policy.
But what remains an interesting fact is that North Korea and Venezuela have been added to the list. Not that there is no interest in ensuring proper vetting, but the fact that these nations were not previously on the list, nor are they hotbeds of Islamic terrorism.
In the case of North Korea, where the suspension was sweeping and applied to both immigrants and non-immigrants, officials said it was hard for the United States to validate the identity of someone coming from North Korea or to find out if that person was a threat.
“North Korea, quite bluntly, does not cooperate whatsoever,” one official said.
The restrictions on Venezuela focused on Socialist government officials that the Trump administration blamed for the country’s slide into economic disarray, including officials from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service and their immediate families.
The new order addresses each country with specific stipulations and requirements, rather than a blanket ban on travel. It is set to go into effect on October 18.
When do you think the lawsuit will be filed?