Published: Wed, June 21, 2017
Culture | By Stewart Greene

Courts are right in travel ban ruling

Courts are right in travel ban ruling

Trump has said the ban is necessary to keep would-be terrorists from traveling to the United States, but opponents have argued that it is meant to keep Muslims from traveling to the country. Under Watson's amended order, Trump cabinet members can continue to review the procedures of other countries in regard to their vetting of visas and can continue to study the internal mechanisms of the USA government's processes.

A federal judge in Hawaii on Monday narrowed the scope of an injunction he issued in March, after an appeals court concluded his initial order was too broad. "For example, internal determinations regarding the necessary information for visa application adjudications do not have an obvious relationship to the constitutional rights at stake or statutory conflicts at issue here".

This part of the ruling "was not narrowly tailored to addressing only the harms alleged", the 9th Circuit panel explained.

The decision by Watson exempts "internal review procedures that do not burden individuals outside of the executive branch of the federal government".

Legal experts caution, however, that this "win" for the administration may have an unintended practical effect. But it may have the opposite effect substantively.

Watson's order put the administration in something of a bind - the government's stated rationale for interrupting migrant entry for 90 days was to assess the strength of its vetting processes.

The travel and refugee bans themselves, though, remain on hold for now.

According to the survey by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, six in ten Americans responded that the ban was meant to shield the country from security threats, according to The Daily Caller.

Like this: