Wheels turning on travel ban
What you need to know as Trump’s ban is implemented
The Supreme Court won’t revisit President Trump’s temporary travel ban until October, but a lot will happen before then that could affect the travel of millions of people around the world.
A scaled-down version of the travel ban that was approved by the court and goes into effect Thursday bars U.S. entry for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen without prior ties to the United States.
The administration also has started a review of anti-terrorism vetting procedures used to screen travelers from all countries, and that could prompt more travel restrictions against a greater number of countries.
Immigration advocates are preparing lawsuits in case they believe the government exceeds legal limits in the actions it takes.
Here’s what you need to know about the next steps for Trump’s travel ban: WHO’S BLOCKED As soon as the Supreme Court issued its decision Monday allowing the administration to implement a scaled-down travel ban, attorneys on both sides of the ban dived into law books to understand what the justices meant.
The court ruled that the administration must allow entry of people from the six targeted majority-Muslim countries who can prove a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. person or entity. They include relatives of U.S. citizens, employees of U.S. companies, students at U.S. universities and refugees already approved for entry.
Starting Thursday, the administration can bar people who don’t have such ties, which were not fully defined by the court.
Can an Iranian businessman making his first trip to the U.S. to meet potential American clients enter? Can a Syrian family just starting its application to become refugees continue that process? Can a Yemeni tourist who has booked his flight and hotel room in the U.S. take that vacation?
Those questions remain unanswered. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights at Penn State Law, is worried that State Department employees who grant visas overseas and Customs and Border Protection agents who screen travelers at U.S. airports will take the most restrictive approach.
That’s why Wadhia and other advocates spent Tuesday coordinating teams of attorneys who can quickly deploy to airports to help detained travelers fight their cases. Amnesty International already has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to reveal the guidance the administration is giving to officers.
“The public needs to know exactly what agents in airports nationwide are being told to do, and we need to know now,” said Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA.
Others say the travel ban already has been scaled back so much by the Trump administra- tion in a revised executive order — and further limited by the Supreme Court — that the number of people ineligible to enter will be very small. The revised ban allows all permanent legal residents, those already granted short-term travel visas, diplomats and employees at U.S.-based international organizations to continue traveling.
Only those with no links to the U.S. may be barred. GLOBAL VETTING REVIEW Last week, the administration began a review of vetting procedures behind the 90-day ban to make sure terrorists don’t sneak into the country.
The administration had argued that it was blocked by courts from starting the review, yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled that it could proceed. The Supreme Court agreed.
The review will work like this: Federal agencies will spend 20 days compiling a list of countries that do not provide enough information on citizens trying to enter the U.S. Foreign governments on the list will have 50 days to supply more information.
After that, Trump will be able to impose new travel restrictions against citizens of any country he believes is not cooperating. BACK TO SUPREME COURT? If the administration completes its review of vetting on schedule it could eliminate the ban.
That could prompt the Supreme Court to decide the case on the constitutionality of the ban is moot.
“I don’t think the court has an appetite to weigh in, so it would probably look for any excuse to get rid of the case,” said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow of constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
If the Trump administration concludes its review by maintaining travel restrictions against the six countries, the court may agree to rule on whether the ban violates the Constitution’s protections of religion.
“The public needs to know exactly what agents in airports nationwide are being told to do, and we need to know now.” Margaret Huang, Amnesty International USA