Trump team assesses legal options on travel ban

Trump team assesses legal options on travel ban

0
Trump team assesses legal options on travel ban

President Trump is assessing all of his legal options on a proposed travel ban from seven Muslim countries, with options ranging from appealing to the Supreme Court to revising the executive order that has triggered massive protests, a senior adviser said Sunday.

“The bottom line is that we are pursuing every single possible action to keep our country safe from terrorism,” policy adviser Stephen Miller told media, one in a series of appearances of Sunday show interviews.

Miller, who was involved in drafting the travel ban now under legal challenge, echoed the president’s criticism of judges who have blocked enforcement of the order pending trials on the merits. “This is a judicial usurpation of power,” Miller told media on Sunday, arguing that the president has absolute authority to protect the nation’s borders. “It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it.”

Trump, who returned to the White House from Florida on Sunday, tweeted out another defense of his order, citing the seven Muslim countries that would be affected by the order. Trump said: “72% of refugees admitted into U.S. (2/3 -2/11) during COURT BREAKDOWN are from 7 countries: SYRIA, IRAQ, SOMALIA, IRAN, SUDAN, LIBYA & YEMEN.” A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of the Trump travel order affecting those seven countries last week, upholding an earlier decision by a federal judge in Seattle.

At this point, the administration could go straight to the Supreme Court and ask it to lift the stay on the order; it could take the matter to the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; it could also head back to the district court level to begin trial on the merits of the travel ban. Miller also suggested there could a revised order or new actions to address what he called the vulnerability of the immigration system to terrorism. “We have multiple tools across multiple fronts to ensure that we are preventing terrorists’ infiltration of our country,” Miller told , “and to ensure that those who enter our country share our values and support our people,”: Miller cast the legal dispute as “an ideological disagreement between those who believe we should have borders and should have controls, and those who believe there should be no borders and no controls.”

Assessing the legal options Miller said: “There are so many things we can do.”