Friday, February 24, 2017

Trump's Muslim Travel Ban 2.0 Will Be Magical

by Michael Dorf

According to a story in The Hill on Wednesday, the White House has decided to wait until next week to release a revised Executive Order (EO) to (presumably) replace EO 13769, which has been stayed in the courts. Exactly what the new EO will say remains to be seen, although, according to White House Adviser Stephen Miller, apparently it will have magical properties.

As recounted in The Hill story, on Tuesday Miller told Fox News that there will be “mostly minor technical differences” between the new EO and EO 13769, even as the new EO will be "new and different." The minor technical differences will somehow be "fully responsive to the courts," which, it bears remembering, have found that the challenges to EO 13769 are likely to succeed on the merits because the flaws in EO 13769 are substantial, not merely technical. Miller, who has no legal training, believes the magical new EO will square the circle because, as he told The Hill in an email, "though any changes are of course very technical and legal in nature, the significance of the changes will be quite substantial."

Suffice it to say that I have my doubts, and not just because Miller's word salad is self-contradictory. As I explained in a recent column, if the new order has a disparate impact on Muslims--as it surely will if it maintains the seven-country ruse that underlies much of EO 13769--then it will almost certainly be tainted by the same history of discrimination that led Judge Brinkema to enjoin EO 13769.

Meanwhile, in all of the litigation and speculation about the new EO, it is easy to lose sight of the nominal justification for the Trump policy. Both Trump's original December 2015 call for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and EO 13769 claim that the travel restrictions are to be temporary measures designed to give the administration time to tighten vetting procedures. That fact leads to an obvious question: What steps, if any, have the president and his team taken to review existing vetting procedures and design new ones?

In addition to imposing travel restrictions, EO 13769 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a number of investigations and to begin implementation of various additional screening measures (such as use of biometrics and additional interviews for visas). The EO contains various time limits for the review and for the receipt of information from targeted countries.

Section 3(c) of EO 13769 suspends entry into the country of nationals of the seven majority-Muslim countries for a period of 90 days, ostensibly to permit the relevant actors to conduct their review of existing screening procedures and begin to implement new ones. How that period interacts with the other time periods in EO 13769 is not entirely clear but also not very important if, as strongly hinted, the new EO supersedes EO 13769.

It is impossible to glean the likely content of the new EO from Miller's double-talk but other sources indicate that it will probably maintain its basic shape while applying to a smaller category of people, expressly exempting green card holders and probably some other current visa holders. If so, a crucial test of the validity of the order should be whether it resets the clock to zero. If so, that would be strong evidence of bad faith.

How so? Let's suppose that the administration issues the new EO on Monday of next week, which is 31 days after the issuance of EO 13769. There is nothing in the fact that EO 13769 has been on ice since Judge Robart's ruling that should have prevented the Departments of State and Homeland Security (or anyone else in the administration) from undertaking steps to review existing procedures. To be sure, Section 3(c) of EO 13769 says that the reason for the travel ban from the seven listed countries is "[t]o temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period," but this is what in technical legal terms is called bullshit.

For one thing, the review to be conducted is at the high levels of the relevant departments, not by the line officers who do the screening for visas. And in any event, there is no burden on those line officers due to travel to the U.S. by people who already have visas.

Now maybe the new order will address this obvious deficiency by exempting current visa holders, but if the point is to free up the time of the screening officers, then it ought to exempt all visa holders, i.e., all people whose entry won't pose any sort of burden for the officers now being asked (supposedly) to do extra work by reviewing the efficacy of existing screening procedures. If any category of persons holding current visas is not exempted from a travel ban, that will be evidence that the justification of freeing up people's time is nonsense.

Indeed, the freeing-up-time justification was always nonsense, which is why it hasn't tended to come up in litigation. The government has instead tended to say that the seven-country list identifies areas of extra security risk and that therefore, people ought not to be allowed in from those countries until the screening procedures have been tightened. This also turns out to be false, as the government has pointedly declined to offer evidence, in camera or otherwise, of what security risks are posed by the people targeted by EO 13769, but even if it were taken to be true, it would not preclude the review of screening procedures while the travel ban is stayed.

This brings us back to the timing issue. If the government has actually been using the time that has elapsed since January 27 to review screening procedures, then any version of the new EO that corresponds to Section 3(c) of 13769 ought to last for no more than 90 days minus the time that has elapsed since then. If the new EO is issued on Monday of next week, say, that would be 59 days. Each additional passing day before the issuance of the new EO should reduce that figure by one day.

Of course, even the reduced length of the ban is arbitrarily high. Trump has been able to receive intelligence briefings since May of last year. During any of the intervening nine months did he or any of his advisors seek information relevant to tightening screening procedures? That question won't be answered publicly, I'm sure, but we will be able to infer from the content of the new EO whether it really bears any relation at all to improving screening procedures with impediments to entry by a collection of mostly Muslim foreign nationals as a mere unfortunate side effect or whether, instead, those impediments are the raison d'être of Muslim Ban 2.0, just as they were for Muslim ban 1.0.


Joe said...

AG Jeff Sessions does look like a magical elf.

Bob Hockett said...

Good Lord. Mr. Miller, who has neither any legal training nor any economic training - only, it seems, bigotry training - is said to be Mr. Trump's principal policy advisor in both spaces - the legal and the economic. Having already made a legal hash of immigration policy, he now appears to be committed to making a META-hash of it. One can only look forward with grim fascination to what he will do with economic policy. One suspects that the spectacle will most resemble an auto mechanic's trying a hand at brain surgery.

Joe said...

Some input from international experts:

Unknown said...

So what was the motivation (primary or exclusive) behind the orignial EO and the new EO?

It was to designed (by a completely unqualified Goebbels look-alike propagandist) to let The Ignoramus's deplorable base know that he is fulfilling his (December 7, 2015) campaign rhetoric to implement a "total and complete shutdown of Muslim's entering the United States ... "

If the new EO only attempts to exclude persons (from the 7 countries) who have never set foot in the US (and who have no contact with the US or a US citizen or institution) from seeking entry, then the religious discrimination argument that was the subject of Judge Brinkema's opinion will be front and center. And the issue will be whether or not this class of aliens is afforded any protection (from religious discrimination) under the Constitution?

The Supreme Court's oral argument (in particular Justice Kennedy's concerns) in Hernandez v. Mesa (held on February 21) does not bode well for that class of aliens.

If the Court holds that a Mexican citizen, standing on Mexican soil, who is killed by an American law enforcement officer, standing on American soil, has no right under the Constitution (Fourth, Fifth or Fourteenth Am.) to sue the officer in an American court for wrongful death, than I find it hard to believe that the Court would find that the class of aliens prevented (by the EO) from seeking entry into the US are in any way protected by the Constitution, even if the EO was motivated exclusively by insidious religious animus.

Michael C. Dorf said...

One small point: The issue in Mesa is somewhat different because the SCOTUS already held (in Verdugo) that the 4th Am doesn't apply to non-citizens w/o substantial prior contacts outside the US and because Mesa involves whether to recognize a Bivens cause of action for damages.

rehan putar said...

Sekian lama saya bermain togel baru kali ini saya
benar-benar merasakan yang namanya kemenangan 4D
dan alhamdulillah saya dapat Rp.630 juta dan semua ini
berkat bantuan angka dari AKI MANGKUBONO
karena cuma beliaulah yang memberikan angka
ghoibnya yang di jamin 100% tembus awal saya
bergabung hanya memasang 200 ribu karna
saya gak terlalu percaya ternyatah benar-benar
tembus dan kini saya gak ragu-ragu lagi untuk memasang
angkanya karna 2X berturut-turut saya menang
buat anda yang butuh angka 2d 3d 4d dijamin tembus
hubungi di nomor hp: 085203333887 AKI MANGKUBONO
saya jamin beliau akan membantu kesusahan
anda apalagi kalau anda terlilit hutang trima kasih