Trump to "replace" Travel Ban

Two weeks before the USSC was about to hear arguments regarding the Trump travel ban, the President has announced that what had been in place is being replaced with a broader travel restrictions aimed at countries who specifically do not meet certain minimum requirements for security vetting.

Contrary to the arguments of some, the timing of the announcement is not about the upcoming court case, but is based on the fact that the original travel ban has run out.

Apparently the Administration has been negotiating with officials from several countries that were said to have lax travel restrictions which includes an inability to provide basic information on their citizens who travel here. Among the information required is an actual ability to "verify" the identify of a traveler, an ability to communicate passport information electronically, and provide the United States with information they have on criminal and terror networks. These countries were give a fifty day notice to comply with these standards, or face travel restrictions.

Officials have suggested that many of these countries added measures to improve their vetting process, while others either said they couldn't or wouldn't comply. The former will not be affected by the restrictions, while the latter will be the countries that ultimately will face new travel restrictions.

Already, some groups have stated that they will sue the Administration (again)... even before this list of countries has been released. Proof that such lawsuits are now simply a knee jerk reaction to anything the Trump administration does, rather than a well thought out legal argument based on the facts at hand. I wonder out loud, how liberal groups can side with foreign states who refuse to abide by minimal security standards over our own Department of Homeland Security. To openly admit that your allegiance is to Syrian or Iranian officials, rather than our own DHS officials is truly remarkable.

There is no news as to how this will affect the upcoming court case against the original Trump travel ban. The USSC could still hold hearings on the original travel ban, or I suppose they could find that such arguments would be moot, as the ban is no longer in place. Many expected that the President would simply "extend" the original ban, thus providing a more clear cut reason for the court to hear the arguments.


UPDATE: The new ban will effect all travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea... as well as specific restriction from Iraq and Venezuela.

UPDATE II: Department of Justice is asking the USSC to consider new filings and new briefs to be brought forward no later than October 5th as it pertains to the new executive order. In essence the Trump administration is looking for a quick USSC decision on this. I would hope that the USSC would agree to continue with the original case (as the underlying principals are pretty much the same) but I could see it go either way.

In theory, the fact that the USSC stayed the lower court decisions pending their own review "should" (logically) prevent lower court orders from being implemented (even if lower court decisions were in favor of the plaintiffs, the option always exists to stay their own orders pending appeal). However, the lower courts in question don't appear to want to play nice (either with the Administration or the USSC). So it's certainly possible that a lower court would declare the "new order" unconstitutional and demand that it be halted (even knowing that the USSC stayed these exact same orders just a couple of months ago).