More bans on more countries could follow

The Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday upholding President Donald Trump’s travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries could lead to more bans targeting far more countries, legal experts said.

Supporters and opponents of the ban said the ruling opens the door for Trump to flex his executive authority to restrict legal immigration from additional countries, as long as he provides a rational reason, such as national security or public safety.

Christopher Hajec, litigation director for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which supports the travel ban, said the president could institute a temporary ban on immigration from El Salvador by citing the threat posed by MS-13 gang members from that country. The Justice Department warned that gang members infiltrate the USA through the asylum system.

The president could implement similar restrictions on more Muslim countries with ties to terrorism, on Central American countries riddled with drug cartels and other nations that his administration says pose a threat to U.S. security.

“I think that anything is possible with this administration,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who battled Trump’s travel ban in federal court.

“I think that anything is possible with this administration.”

Lee Gelernt ACLU

The Trump administration has not publicly discussed any plans for travel bans targeting additional countries.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the ruling was critical to ensure “the continued authority of President Trump” to protect Americans. The Department of Homeland Security said the ruling will help stop the entry of not only terrorists but “other malicious actors who seek to do us harm.”

The ruling is not a blanket approval to ban immigration.

Andrew Arthur with the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports Trump’s travel ban, said the justices decided mostly on the specifics of the travel ban.

Arthur, a former immigration judge, said the order was designed to improve information-sharing between the United States and countries that do not provide adequate information on the identity, criminal history and terrorist ties of its citizens who try to enter the USA. The administration identified 47 countries with questionable information-sharing processes through its implementation of the travel ban and has worked to improve those relationships.

The justices gave approval to that process alone, Arthur said, but they also provided the most in-depth defense yet of the presidential ability to ban people deemed “detrimental to the interests” of the United States.