Travel tweets may haunt Trump
Diatribes appear to undercut his own order, could damage case before the Supreme Court
Lawyers on both sides of the dispute over President Trump’s immigration travel ban agreed on one thing Monday: The president probably hurt his case at the Supreme Court with a series of early-morning tweets.
By referring to the latest version of the temporary ban on most travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries as “politically correct” and calling for a “much tougher version,” they said, Trump made it seem as if he doesn’t support his own policy.
By acknowledging that the government already is engaged in “EXTREME VETTING” of foreigners seeking entry to the United States, they said, Trump raised questions about the need for an executive order to provide 90 days to review and improve counterterrorism screening.
And by calling the courts “slow and political,” they said, the president renewed the feud with the judiciary and particular judges he began in February, when the earliest rulings against the travel order were issued.
“In general, talkative clients pose distinct difficulties for attorneys, as statements outside the court can frustrate strategies inside the court,” wrote conservative blogger Josh Blackman, associate professor at South Texas College of Law. “These difficulties are amplified exponentially when the client is the president of the United States, and he continuously sabotages his lawyers.”
Trump’s four tweets came just days after his Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift federal court rulings blocking the travel ban. In its filings, the Justice Department had argued that Trump’s revisions to his original travel order, which federal courts said targeted Muslims, “demon-
strate good faith.”
But the president instead referred to his second executive order as a “watered-down, politically correct version” and declared he wants a “much tougher version” in the future.
“With his four tweets this morning, the president is basically reaffirming whatever his intent was in the beginning,” said Cecilia Wang, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents challengers to the ban from Maryland in one of two cases now before the high court.
And Neal Katyal, the lead attorney representing challengers in the other case from Hawaii, quipped on Twitter that it may be better to cede the customary 30 minutes of oral argument time to the president’s team.
Even George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, who had been considered for two high-ranking Justice Department posts, tweeted that Trump’s comments “certainly won’t help” get five votes from the Supreme Court — “which is what actually matters.”
The president’s statements appeared to be a reaction to the weekend’s terrorist attack in London, which left seven people dead and dozens injured. He has cast his executive order as a homeland security measure.
Most courts that have considered the question have identified Trump’s true intent in his words from the presidential campaign, when he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. The original executive order made an exception for religious minorities from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, which would have exempted Christians. Iraq has since been removed from the list.
Trump didn’t mention religion Monday, but legal experts said his criticism of the second order as “politically correct” could be interpreted that way.
“It predisposes judges. They’re human beings, they’re not robots,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a University of Virginia School of Law professor and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
If nothing else, it gives challengers to the ban current statements to cite, since several justices may not think Trump’s campaign rhetoric is relevant to his actions as president.
Judging from Trump’s tweets, his views from the campaign haven’t changed, said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center: “It’s not that hard to read between the lines.”