ON March 6th, following a shellacking in several federal courts, Donald Trump quietly released a revised version of his executive order banning travel from a handful of Muslim countries. The new order excised a few of the more objectionable provisions (lifting restrictions on green-card holders and on people who already have valid visas) and padded the closing section to explain why travellers from six countries should remain banned; but why Iraqi nationals deserve a reprieve. Twice as long as the first order, the revision was crafted with the hope of withstanding further litigation concerning its legality and constitutionality. Now, on the eve of its March 16th implementation date, the ban again faces a barrage of legal challenges.
One tack is to march back to James Robart, the federal district judge in Seattle who issued a temporary restraining order against Mr Trump’s January 27th ban in early February. Mr Robart’s decision, which was upheld unanimously by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applied to the entirety of Mr Trump’s first executive order. Washington state, joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon,...Continue reading
Source: United States http://ift.tt/2nBAVM7
EmoticonEmoticon