President Donald Trump is considering a new executive order to ban citizens of certain countries from traveling to the US after his initial attempt was overturned in the courts.
He told reporters on Air Force One that a “brand new order” could be issued as early as February 13 or 14.
The president made the announcement after an appeals court in San Francisco upheld a court ruling to suspend his original order.
The executive order barred entry from citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.
It is unclear what a new US immigration order might look like.
Donald Trump said that it would change “very little”, but he did not provide details of any new ban under consideration.
Image source Getty Images
Despite his suggestion on February 10, President Trump’s administration may still pursue its case in the courts over the original order, which was halted a week ago by a Seattle judge.
“We’ll win that battle,” he told reporters.
Donald Trump added: “The unfortunate part is it takes time. We’ll win that battle. But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.”
An unnamed judge from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which on February 9 upheld the stay on the original order, has called on all 25 judges of that court to vote on whether to hear the appeal again.
Technically known as an en banc review, a second hearing of the case would involve an 11-judge panel, rather than the three who initially heard the appeal.
Donald Trump’s travel ban, which was hastily unveiled at the end of his first week in office, caused chaos at US airports and sparked protests across the country.
On February 9, the appeals court said the administration failed to offer “any evidence” to justify the ban, which the president said was necessary to keep the US safe from terror attacks.
However, Donald Trump insisted that the executive order was crucial for national security and promised to take action “very rapidly” to introduce “additional security” steps in the wake of the court’s decision.
The president spoke as Virginia state lawyers argued in court that his policy “resulted from animus toward Muslims”.
Their challenge focuses on the travel restrictions imposed by the ban, rather than the four-month suspension of refugee admissions.
Lawyers for the US government in Virginia wrote that “judicial second-guessing” amounted to “an impermissible intrusion” on Donald Trump’s constitutional authority.
The appeals court ruling means that visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can continue to enter the US, and refugees from around the world, who were also subject to a temporary ban, are no longer blocked either.
However, the ruling does not affect one part of Donald Trump’s controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under President Barack Obama.
Thirty more tech companies have signed a brief opposing President Donald Trump’s travel ban, bringing the total number involved to 127.
Tesla, Adobe, HP and Evernote are among the new signatories.
They join 97 other companies which have filed a legal document stating the ban “inflicts significant harm” on their businesses and is unconstitutional.
The amicus brief allows parties not directly involved in a case but who feel affected by it, to give a view.
It was filed in Washington on February 5 and also includes Apple, Facebook and Microsoft as signatories.
Amazon is not part of the amicus brief but it is a witness in the original lawsuit brought by the Washington state Attorney General.
Image source Getty Images
President Trump’s executive order halted the entire US refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely banned Syrian refugees and suspended permission to enter the US for all nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries.
There is currently a nationwide temporary restraining order in place, which was issued on February 3 by a federal judge in Washington.
This means visa holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be allowed to enter the US until the full case has been heard.
However, Donald Trump has said he will fight the order as it puts national security at risk.
The tech group’s brief reads: “Of course, the federal government can and should implement targeted, appropriate adjustments to the nation’s immigration system to enhance the nation’s security.
“But a broad, open-ended ban – together with an indication that the ban could be expanded to other countries without notice – does not fit the goal of making the country more secure. Instead, it will undermine American interests.”
The DoJ has defended President Donald Trump’s immigration ban and urged an appeals court to reinstate it in the interests of national security.
In a 15-page brief it argued it was a “lawful exercise of the president’s authority” and not a ban on Muslims.
President Trump’s executive order temporarily banned entry for all refugees and visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.
A hearing has been set for today on whether to allow or reject the ban.
The filing was made to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the halting of Donald Trump’s order on February 3 by a federal judge in Washington state.
Image source Flickr
The judge had ruled the ban was unconstitutional and harmful to the state’s interests.
As a result, people from the seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – with valid visas were able to travel to the US again.
The brief filed on February 6 said the Washington court had “erred in entering an injunction barring enforcement of the order”.
“But even if some relief were appropriate, the court’s sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad,” the DoJ added.
President Trump’s executive order issued on January 25 fulfilled his campaign promise to tighten restrictions on arrivals to the US.
It caused confusion at US and foreign airports when it came into force, and was widely condemned, although polls suggest that US public opinion is sharply divided on the policy.
The states of Washington and Minnesota have argued that as well as being unconstitutional, the travel ban is harmful to their residents, businesses and universities.
Attorneys general in 16 states have signed a letter condemning the ban, and lawsuits have been launched in 14 states.
Former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright and former CIA director Leon Panetta have joined others in drafting a letter which describes the travel ban as ineffective, dangerous and counterproductive.
Lawyers for tech giants including Apple and Google have also lodged arguments with the court, saying that the travel ban would harm their companies by making it more difficult to recruit employees.