US president seeks pause in legal fight with revised travel ban

An activist protests against the US travel ban outside of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (AP)

SAN FRANCISCO: The Trump administration said in court documents it wants a pause in the legal fight over its ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, so it can issue a replacement ban as it strives to protect the nation from terrorism.
Details of the new proposal were not provided in the filing or at a wide-ranging news conference by President Donald Trump. But lawyers for the administration said in the filing that a ban that focuses solely on foreigners who have never entered the US — instead of green card holders already in the US or who have traveled abroad and want to return — would pose no legal difficulties.
“In so doing, the president will clear the way for immediately protecting the country rather than pursuing further, potentially time-consuming litigation,” the filing said.
Trump said at the news conference that a new order would come next week.
“I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country,” he said.
Legal experts said a new order focusing only on residents of the seven countries who had never entered the US would still face legal hurdles over possible religious discrimination.
The administration attacked the decision in Thursday’s court filing, saying the panel wrongly suggested some foreigners may be entitled to constitutional protections. The filing also rejected the judges’ determination that courts could consider Trump’s statements about shutting down Muslim immigration.
The lawsuit says the ban unconstitutionally blocks entry to the US on the basis of religion and harms residents, universities and sales tax revenue in the two states. Eighteen other states, including California and New York, have supported the challenge.
In his filing with the 9th Circuit Thursday, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the ruling by the three-judge panel was consistent with previous US Supreme Court decisions, so there was no basis for a review.
Purcell said Trump had campaigned on the promise to ban Muslims from entering the US and one week into office issued the order that “radically changed immigration policy” and “unleashed chaos around the world.”
The panel said the states had raised “serious” allegations that the ban targets Muslims, and it rejected the federal government’s argument that courts do not have the authority to review the president’s immigration and national security decisions.
The judges said the Trump administration presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — was responsible for a terrorist attack in the US.
In Thursday’s filing, the administration said the ban was intended to prevent potential attacks from “nationals of seven countries that were previously found to present uniquely high risks of terrorism.”
The ban does not discriminate on the basis of religion because it affects only a fraction of the world’s Muslim population and also applies to non-Muslims in those countries, the administration said.