NEW YORK // American states are scrambling to block Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, lodging legal challenges and asking for emergency hearings to prevent new restrictions come into force on Thursday.
This week four states joined with Washington to request that the injunction against Mr Trump’s initial ban be further applied to its replacement. Meanwhile 14 more states offered backing to a challenge launched by Hawaii last week.
Opponents say the new version may have been streamlined to avoid tales of American residents being barred from flying home, but it still discriminates against Muslims.
Bob Ferguson, Washington state’s attorney general who has become something of a folk hero for overturning the first ban, said: “No one is above the law, not even the president – and I will hold him accountable to the constitution.
“Cutting some illegal aspects of President Trump’s original travel ban does not cure his affront to our constitution.”
Mr Trump’s first attempt at banning arrivals from seven mainly Muslim nations – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – provoked mass protests at airports where passengers were detained on arrival.
It lasted only a week.
A Seattle court imposed an injunction blocking the ban after Mr Ferguson argued that families, universities and businesses were suffering because of the ban. It was later upheld on appeal.
The revised version exempts nationals from Iraq, green card holders as well as other travellers who have already secured visas, and allows for discretionary waivers.
In so doing it aims to avoid the bungled implementation of the original, which still managed to win the backing of more than half of registered voters, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll published last month.
However, opponents say the revised version still amounts to a Muslim ban and falls foul of the US constitution.
On Monday, Mr Ferguson lodged papers with the same Seattle court accusing the government of attempting to dodge judicial authority by trying to impose a new order.
“Injunctions are not suggestions,” reads his emergency motion. “When a court enjoins a defendant from enforcing policies, the defendant cannot evade the injunction by announcing that it will continue only some of the illegal policies. Yet that is what Defendants attempt here.”
He asked for a hearing on Tuesday.
Justice James Robart, who heard the original case, said he would not schedule court time until Wednesday, just a day before the new ban is due to come into force.
Instead he asked the government to file its response by the close of business on Tuesday.
A second defeat for the president would be deeply embarrassing.
During the election campaign he accused President Barack Obama and his rival Hillary Clinton of failing to properly tackle terrorism. He made a point of referring to “radical Islamic terrorism” and repeatedly warned of the risks of allowing tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the country for fear they represented a terrorist “Trojan horse”.
He promised to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the country until he had a chance to review the immigration system.
That promise – although watered down – now stands at the heart of the legal challenges.
“President Trump campaigned on the promise of ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’,” runs Washington state’s legal case. “Although he was repeatedly asked to reconsider this promise, he refused. Put simply, the ‘Muslim ban’ was a centrepiece of the president’s campaign for months.”
The complaint claims the second executive order violates the first, tenth and 14 amendments of the US constitution, which were designed, respectively, to prevent the government from preferring one religion over another, to afford everyone the right to due legal process and to ensure that all individuals be treated without bias.
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have all joined the case.
The attorney general of New York said international students from the six designated countries enrolled in local institutions were worth an estimated $28.8 million to the state’s economy in 2015.
Eric Schneiderman said: “As our complaint details, President Trump’s second executive order is just a Muslim Ban by another name, seeking to accomplish the same unlawful and unconstitutional goals of the first ban.
“The Trump administration’s continued intent to discriminate against Muslims is clear – and it undermines New York’s families, institutions, and economy.”
New York is anticipating its first drop in visitor numbers since 2008 as a result of the ban. The city forecasts welcoming 300,000 fewer international visitors in 2017, representing a 2.1% decrease on last year’s figures.
foreign.desk@thenational.ae