Despite facing significant protests back in 2017, former President Donald Trump has announced a new travel ban affecting individuals from 12 countries, signaling a return to a controversial policy from his initial term. Legal scholars suggest that this new order has been strategically designed to avoid the legal pitfalls encountered by its predecessor.
The first travel ban, aimed primarily at seven predominantly Muslim nations, faced extensive backlash and was labeled the "Muslim ban" by critics. Amended multiple times to mitigate court challenges, it was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, a model that resembles Trump’s latest attempt. Experts indicate that Trump has adopted a more thoughtful approach this time around.
Christi Jackson, a U.S. immigration law expert, noted that the latest ban has clearer exemptions and an expanded scope compared to the previous order, which suffered from “lack of clarity.” While there are some overlaps in the countries targeted by both bans, this new iteration does not specifically target Muslim-majority states.
Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan, remarked on the likelihood of this travel ban gaining approval from the Supreme Court if challenged. Under the new restriction set to take effect on June 9, the list includes countries mainly from the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean, such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia. In addition, there will be limited restrictions on seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela.
Trump cited perceived threats, including a recent incident in Boulder, Colorado, committed by an Egyptian national, to justify the ban. Yet, Egypt is not included in the specified countries. Trump's rationale also pointed to high rates of visa overstays as a contributing factor for the ban, but legal experts have expressed concerns about the ambiguous criteria used to determine these rates, which could lead to further legal disputes.
In contrast to the original travel ban, which was set for only 90 to 120 days, this new order carries no specified end date. Reactions from the impacted nations have been largely negative, with Venezuela condemning the move as emblematic of "supremacist" beliefs while Somalia has expressed a willingness to discuss the concerns raised by the U.S.
The previous ban sparked nationwide protests and significant disruption at airports. President Joe Biden later repealed it in 2021, denouncing it as "a stain on our national conscience." Immigration lawyer Shabnam Lotfi, whose work contributed to challenging the first ban, believes it will be difficult to legally contest the new order, considering the President's extensive authority regarding immigration. She also highlighted potential repercussions for different visa categories, including students and foreign investors, indicating that their prospects to enter the U.S. could be severely hampered under this new policy.
The first travel ban, aimed primarily at seven predominantly Muslim nations, faced extensive backlash and was labeled the "Muslim ban" by critics. Amended multiple times to mitigate court challenges, it was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, a model that resembles Trump’s latest attempt. Experts indicate that Trump has adopted a more thoughtful approach this time around.
Christi Jackson, a U.S. immigration law expert, noted that the latest ban has clearer exemptions and an expanded scope compared to the previous order, which suffered from “lack of clarity.” While there are some overlaps in the countries targeted by both bans, this new iteration does not specifically target Muslim-majority states.
Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan, remarked on the likelihood of this travel ban gaining approval from the Supreme Court if challenged. Under the new restriction set to take effect on June 9, the list includes countries mainly from the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean, such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Somalia. In addition, there will be limited restrictions on seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela.
Trump cited perceived threats, including a recent incident in Boulder, Colorado, committed by an Egyptian national, to justify the ban. Yet, Egypt is not included in the specified countries. Trump's rationale also pointed to high rates of visa overstays as a contributing factor for the ban, but legal experts have expressed concerns about the ambiguous criteria used to determine these rates, which could lead to further legal disputes.
In contrast to the original travel ban, which was set for only 90 to 120 days, this new order carries no specified end date. Reactions from the impacted nations have been largely negative, with Venezuela condemning the move as emblematic of "supremacist" beliefs while Somalia has expressed a willingness to discuss the concerns raised by the U.S.
The previous ban sparked nationwide protests and significant disruption at airports. President Joe Biden later repealed it in 2021, denouncing it as "a stain on our national conscience." Immigration lawyer Shabnam Lotfi, whose work contributed to challenging the first ban, believes it will be difficult to legally contest the new order, considering the President's extensive authority regarding immigration. She also highlighted potential repercussions for different visa categories, including students and foreign investors, indicating that their prospects to enter the U.S. could be severely hampered under this new policy.
