New Trump ban ‘could work’

President Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday restricting travellers from an expanded list of countries has been criticised by immigrant and civil rights groups as no more lawful than his previous travel ban, but it could stand a better chance of holding up in court, experts said.

President Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday restricting travellers from an expanded list of countries has been criticised by immigrant and civil rights groups as no more lawful than his previous travel ban, but it could stand a better chance of holding up in court, legal experts said.

The new presidential proclamation, which Trump said was needed to screen out terrorist or public safety threats, indefinitely restricts travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea. Some officials from Venezuela will also be barred.

Trump’s March 6 temporary travel ban, which replaced another ban from January and expired on Sunday, targeted six Muslim-majority countries. It sparked international outrage and was quickly blocked by federal courts as unconstitutional discrimination or a violation of immigration law.

In June, the US Supreme Court allowed a limited version of the ban to go ahead while the justices examine its legality.

The proclamation, set to go into effect on October 18, could be less vulnerable to legal attack, scholars and other experts said, because it is the result of a months-long analysis of foreign vetting procedures by US officials. It also might be less easily tied to Trump’s campaign-trail statements some courts viewed as biased against Muslims.

The government has said the president has broad authority in immigration and national security matters, but challengers to the earlier ban had argued that it ran afoul of the US Constitution’s bar on favouring one religion over another.