Immigration advocates have been preparing for legal battles against Donald Trump’s updated travel restrictions, which target 19 countries for more extensive scrutiny. The policy expands on the 2017 administration’s ban, which was found to have legal challenges due to its focus on Muslim-majority countries. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, has expressed confidence that the legal standing of this new policy is stronger, making its survival in court more likely.
Trump’s latest travel restrictions include countries like Afghanistan and Iran, as well as non-Muslim-majority nations such as Haiti, Venezuela, Eritrea, and Burundi. Rahmani explained that while the initial ban faced criticism for its religious undertones, the new order avoids explicit religious targeting, possibly enhancing its legal defensibility. The Supreme Court, now with Trump-appointed justices, may be more favorable to the executive’s policies in this context.
Despite the anticipated opposition from Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups, legal experts believe the new travel ban may withstand judicial scrutiny. The 2017 case, which was ruled on a 5-4 basis, is considered an important precedent, but the current court’s composition has altered the potential outcomes for such cases. While some argue this new policy could exacerbate existing immigrant challenges, the focus on national security and screening processes has been highlighted as a legal defense.
Attorneys like Ilya Somin have indicated that the travel ban might be more resistant to challenges than other executive actions, like the recent tariffs. The debate is ongoing, but the legal strategy suggests that Trump’s travel ban is constructed in a way that could survive court challenges, which could lead to a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy for the foreseeable future.