Business Standard

Trump balks at disclosing report backing travel ban

- PETER BLUMBERG

President Donald Trump says those challengin­g the latest version of his travel ban in court can’t see a report explaining why he targeted immigrants from seven nations because it’s secret.

The government on Friday told a Hawaii federal judge who demanded disclosure of the report that it’s classified and should remain off-limits as evidence in the court battle. That judge blocked a previous version of the president’s immigratio­n restrictio­ns amid a fierce debate over national security and discrimina­tion.

Justice Department lawyers said they’d reluctantl­y provide a copy of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s September 15 report to be viewed privately by the judge “in a secure location.” But they said the judge shouldn’t review the document because the government won’t be relying on it to defend the travel ban.

The government lawyers said prior court rulings establish that judges can’t “look behind” public proclamati­ons by presidents about matters of foreign policy and national security. They quoted from a 1999 US Supreme Court case: “The Executive should not have to disclose its ‘real’ reasons for deeming nationals of a particular country a special threat.”

Trump’s decree would unconditio­nally suspend entry to all people travelling to the US from Syria and North Korea and bar many coming from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Venezuela and Yemen. He concluded that the government­s of those nations couldn’t provide the US with assurance their citizens don’t pose safety threats to the US.

The president referenced the homeland security report in a proclamati­on accompanyi­ng the revised policy he issued September 24. He said the report recommende­d limiting entry to certain people from seven nations, while his executive order targets eight countries.

“According to the report, the recommende­d restrictio­ns would help address the threats that the countries’ identity-management protocols, informatio­n-sharing inadequaci­es, and other risk factors pose to the security and welfare of the United States,” the president said in the proclamati­on.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said the president hasn’t provided an adequate justificat­ion for the restrictio­ns he’s imposing.

“If a foreign government does not provide informatio­n necessary to determine whether a national of that country is a terrorist, immigratio­n officers can deny entry to that individual,” Chin, a Democrat, said in an October 10 court filing. “There is no logical reason why an additional, blanket ban is warranted to exclude such individual­s.”

James Walther, a spokesman for Chin, declined to comment on the Friday filing.

The president’s edict is set to take effect Wednesday if it’s not blocked by a court order, as happened with two previous versions of the travel ban before the Supreme Court finally allowed modified restrictio­ns to take effect from June to September.

There have been at least six legal challenges to the latest ban. As with with the earlier versions, the central question will be whether animosity towards Muslims is a reason for the executive order.

Some legal experts have said that because the new restrictio­ns aren’t focused exclusivel­y on Muslim-majority nations, immigratio­n advocates will have a tougher time persuading judges to block it.

US District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu, who ordered the Trump administra­tion to file the homeland security report, halted the second version of the president’s travel ban before it could be enforced.

In March, Watson, appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, dismissed the Justice Department’s contention the travel restrictio­ns were constituti­onal because they only applied to some countries. Even after the government had revised the original restrictio­ns issued in January, Watson wasn’t convinced that the rewritten ban was free of religious discrimina­tion.

“The illogic of the government’s contention­s is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrat­e animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamenta­lly flawed.” BLOOMBERG

 ?? REUTERS ?? Some legal experts have said that because the new restrictio­ns aren’t focused exclusivel­y on Muslim-majority nations, immigratio­n advocates will have a tougher time persuading judges to block it
REUTERS Some legal experts have said that because the new restrictio­ns aren’t focused exclusivel­y on Muslim-majority nations, immigratio­n advocates will have a tougher time persuading judges to block it

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India