Trump Tries Again

Possibly Trump’s most well-known promise during his campaign was to place a ban on Muslims. Since the election, his promise has changed since you cannot bar anyone from entering the country based on their religious beliefs. Instead, he created an executive order in January, seven days after the inauguration, banning the entrance from those coming from various countries that were populated by a majority of Muslims as well as blocking the nation off from refugees. This ban was shot down by the courts almost instantaneously in regard to many questions that arose concerning people currently in the country on a visa, those who are legalized citizens, and those who have been delayed or detained while entering the country.

Instead of bringing this ban to the Supreme Court, which only had eight members at the time, to determine its legality. So, he and his team drafted another version of the bill. In this revised edition which was implemented in March, current visa holders were exempt from the ban and Iraq was removed from the list of seven countries.

Trump believes though that this ban has gone on for long enough, and late last night asked federal judges to temporarily reinstate the ban, or at least lift some of the injunctions regarding specific parties. The basis they have to ask for this change in policy was released in a statement from the Justice Department’s spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores, “[We] are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within the lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism.” Her statement continues to back Trump’s position by saying he is not required to allow people into the country who pose a threat to the United States.

Even though the administration has been adamant that this is not an attempt to get the Muslim ban through and is simply a safeguard against terrorism not everyone is as easily convinced. A 4^th circuit federal appeals court in Virginia has prevented its passage because it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” This holds true as a 9^th Circuit Appeals Court in California has also blocked this law.

The lawyers involved with both of these cases sees no reason to disturb the court’s ruling since they are consistent with all other courts around the nation.

The lower courts, however, have a contradictory belief saying that the argument that this is a roundabout way to pass a Muslim ban cannot be the basis for blocking its passage because those statements were made before Trump took office. During a president’s campaign, they say whatever they can to get the support of others. The use of the term “Muslim ban” may have simply been an extreme form of rhetoric, which I believe Trump has made a usage of not meaning the full extent of each campaign promise made.

Others within the government back this belief including current acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall who stated that “This Court has never invalidated religion-neutral government action based on speculation about official’s subjective motivations drawn from campaign-trail statements by a political candidate.” Also, going on to say that this “is not a so-called ‘Muslim ban,’ and campaign comments cannot change that basic fact.” Nowhere in the Executive Order does it say that those barred from entering the country are solely Muslim, it includes ALL citizens of the banned nations as well as all refugees around the world.

The Justice Department hopes that the courts will be able to see how “vastly overbroad” their rulings have been since they are not being allowed to enforce any facet of the ban.

Although the Justice Department is simply asking for an expedited process, many believe that this will not happen since Trump waited until the last minute to ask for the appeal, but he only needs four judges to agree for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court.

If it does not happen now, it is still possible for the Supreme Court to hear the case come next fall where they can issue a formal decision on its legality. Now that there are nine supreme court justices, I believe it is likely that this will reach the supreme court at one point or another.