The
White House is floating a new way to counter a stunning appeals court
ruling that set back President Trump's immigration order – redrafting
the order in a way that could take effect immediately and be more
resistant to legal challenge.
President
Trump signaled an unmistakable instinct to fight for his original order
Thursday night when bluntly told opponents: 'See you in court!' after
criticizing judges who stood in his path.
But
now, the White House is also laying out an alternative path. Asked if
the president was considering signing a new executive order on
immigration, a White House official told CNN, '"Nothing's off the table."
CNN's
Jim Acosta added on air Friday morning, 'They may go back and revise
this executive order that that is a possibility that no options are
being essentially taken off the table at this point.'
By
redrafting the order, the White House could conceivably try to correct
several elements of the order that have drawn scrutiny in court.
NBC
reported Friday that White House attorneys were already engaged in the
effort. Options include continuing the court fight that Trump has vowed
or signing a new order 'very soon.'
Plaintiffs
have argued that the order essentially codifies Trump's campaign
'Muslim ban,' which he overtly campaigned on, then describing it in new
terms as the campaign wore on.
The
existing order includes only seven countries where Muslims are the vast
majority. It also provides a special carveout for religious minorities
in those countries, a provision that would help Christians facing
persecution.
State
governments have also complained about the hasty drafting of the order,
and how it placed a burden by blocking speakers, lecturers, and
students from affected countries with legitimate visas. These and other
elements might be able to be tweaked to better insulate the order.
In
its Thursday ruling, the 9th Circuit court of appeals noted the
interest in the free flow of travel that avoids separation of families
and 'freedom from discrimination.'
Trump
blasted the decision with a comment from the Lawfare blog that the
court opinion didn't even bother to cite the statute. 'A disgraceful
decision!' Trump wrote.
But the
blog's author, Benjamin Wittes, noted when he tweeted his post after the
president's comment that he backs the court panel's decision.
"You
decide whether the POTUS is quoting me in context. Here's the article.
For the record, I support the decision," he wrote. In the post, Wittes
called referenced Trumps 'repeated and overt invocations of the most
invidious motivations' when describing Trump's Muslim ban. He also notes
both broad presidential powers and the 'incompetent malevolence with
which this order was promulgated.'
After a San Francisco appeals court panel of three judges unanimously ruled to not reinstate Donald Trump's travel ban, his defeated election rival, Hillary Clinton took a jab at the president.
The former secretary of state tweeted '3-0', noting the judges' unanimous call.
Soon,
Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager, hit back at Clinton with a
stinging reminder of her defeat in the presidential election.
'PA,
WI, MI,' Conway, an advisor to Trump in the White House, said in a
message of her own. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan are the states
that were supposed to secure Clinton's presidency but went red.
Just minutes after the ruling, Trump also ashed out on Twitter with an all caps message.
'SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!' Trump wrote.
Trump blasted the Thursday court ruling as a 'disgraceful decision!'
No comments:
Post a Comment