President Donald Trump’s newly announced travel ban could be more legally stable than the one he implemented in 2017, as he gears up for a court battle where immigrant advocates are likely to face significant challenges.
The current travel ban builds on the policies of his initial term, targeting most citizens from seven predominantly Muslim nations—a move that was previously upheld by the Supreme Court in a narrow 5-4 decision. While this order relies on similar immigration laws as its predecessor, it might have a firmer legal standing.
Neema Ramani, a lawyer and former federal prosecutor with a focus on immigration law, expressed confidence that immigrant rights groups will appeal the new decision, though he cautioned, “But they’re going to lose. It’s stronger than the last ban.”
Ramani argued that the prior ban infringed on religious freedoms by singling out Muslims. In contrast, the new order casts a wider net, impacting a total of 19 countries, which includes both majority Muslim nations like Afghanistan and Iran, as well as non-Muslim countries such as Haiti, Venezuela, Eritrea, and Burundi.
Interestingly, Trump had often referred to his previous policies as a “Muslim ban,” and, even after criticism, he seemed to suggest that the current situation was different, noting that there are now “better audiences” for his messaging.
The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling came just before Trump’s appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, joined the bench, aligning ideologically with the president and potentially influencing future cases regarding his policies.
Historically, the Court has granted the president considerable latitude in matters of foreign policy and national security, yet, in 2017, opposing judges claimed that the ban masqueraded as a security measure while actually reflecting religious bias.
Democrats and critics have voiced that Trump’s latest declaration is rooted in bias. Sarah Mehta, from the ACLU, stated it is aimed at complicating legal immigration routes under the pretense of national security, saying, “This executive order is built solely on terrifying governance targeting individuals based on nationality or religious beliefs.”
Trump maintained that the nation’s screening procedures were insufficient, necessitating restrictions to avert potential terrorist threats. He also claimed some nations were uncooperative regarding the acceptance of American citizens.
Ilya Somin, an attorney opposing Trump’s travel policies in the U.S. International Trade Court, mentioned it might be challenging to contest the ban on the basis of ethnic or religious prejudice, given the Supreme Court’s past ruling. However, he hinted at other legal routes based on the limits of Congressional power over administrative actions.
Despite his concerns, Somin did recognize that the travel ban poses a more significant obstacle compared to tariffs, as the Constitution explicitly grants Congress tariff authority, while immigration authority isn’t as clearly defined.
