The White House needs a travel ban why?
On March 6, the president issued an executive order that banned travelers to the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government reviewed procedures for vetting visitors from those countries.
Though at least 13 federal courts have blocked the order on constitutional and statutory grounds, the Ninth Circuit ruled in June that the president can proceed with a review to determine what additional procedures, if any, might be needed from the countries subject to the ban that would address security concerns.
Still, the administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the ban and to review decisions by both the Ninth and Fourth Circuits that nullify “a national-security directive of the president,” as Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general, wrote in a brief filed last Wednesday.
Even if the court reviews the executive order, the justices won’t hear arguments in the case until October at the earliest. Which means the administration has at least four months to carry out its review. So review away.
The travel ban will remain blocked, but the White House has cited no reason not to assess the threat. If security is at stake, there’s seemingly no reason to delay. Of course, the White House has cited no evidence that would suggest a threat that Congress didn’t address when it tightened visa procedures 18 months ago.
The State of Hawaii, which challenged the travel ban in the Ninth Circuit, contends as much. “Indeed, there is no need for the court to grant review at all,” the state wrote in its latest brief, noting that by October, “the government will have had almost nine months to complete the review and upgrade of immigration procedures that the order was allegedly designed to accomplish.”
The administration’s actions suggest the travel ban may be motivated less by keeping the nation safe than by keeping the president’s supporters stirring. If so, that’s a political calculation, which the justices don’t review anyway.