Immigrant groups, state attorneys general and civil rights organisations are poised to launch fresh legal challenges after the Trump administration launched its much delayed revised travel ban on Monday.
The ban temporarily halts entry to the United States for people from six Muslim-majority nations who are seeking new visas. Iraq is no longer included in the ban after American politicians said it punished Iraqis who worked for the US armed forces and risked alienating a key ally in the fight against ISIL.
After the first ban was overturned by a string of a law suits, president Donald Trump’s administration has softened its language, introduced a number of exemptions and provided more forewarning in an effort to head off opposition.
Green card holders and others with existing visas will not be affected when the ban comes into force on March 16. The country’s refugee programme will still be suspended for 120 days, but Syrians seeking refuge will no longer be subjected to a separate, indefinite halt.
The new order also allows entry to those people whose visas were revoked as a result of the first travel ban on January 27.
Despite these changes, critics said the new executive order contained the same fundamental problems as the original.
"The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban," said Omar Jadwat, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "Instead, president Trump has recommitted himself to religious discrimination, and he can expect continued disapproval from both the courts and the people."
The New York attorney general immediately announced he was scrutinising the executive order and stood ready to launch a challenge.
The Yale Law School Clinic, which brought the first case against the original order, said: "The new executive order may use new lawyerly language, but it is animated by the same discriminatory intent.
The new version retains a 90-day ban on travel to the US by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
It also states that tens of thousands of legal permanent residents in the US – or green card holders – will not be affected. That will make it harder for US institutions – such as states or businesses – to bring court challenges by arguing their interests have been harmed by the order and that their workers have been stranded overseas or that families have been divided.
And this time around, Mr Trump – who bragged during his campaign that he would ban Muslims from entering the US – did not hold a public signing ceremony. Instead, the order was presented to the media by three cabinet secretaries.
Attorney general Jeff Sessions said the new order would provide enhanced security.
"In fact today more than 300 people, according to the FBI, who came here as refugees are under an FBI investigation today for potential terrorism related activities," he said.
The original order imposed travel restrictions with immediate effect. Passengers already in the air with valid visas or LEGAL RESIDENTS OF the US returning from abroad, found themselves detained on arrival. An unknown number were deported.
Lawyers and protesters raced to airports during the first weekend to show solidarity or to offer legal guidance.
The ban began to unravel immediately as judges across the country unpicked its provisions. Initially, a judge in New York ordered a halt to deportations as more than two dozen legal challenges proceeded.
The entire order was suspended by a judge in Washington state, a decision upheld by appeal court judges in San Francisco.
The three judges of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said government lawyers failed to offer evidence of "irreparable harm" if the ban on arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Syria Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen was not reimposed.
"The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States," they wrote. "Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all."
Mr Trump publicly criticised judges who ruled against him – hinting that they would be to blame in event of terror attacks – and promised to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. He later said his administration would draft a new order designed to avoid legal challenges, however.
His new order acknowledged the legal challenges by the first travel ban, saying "in order to avoid spending additional time pursuing litigation, I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order".
Iraq expressed "deep relief" at being excluded from the travel ban.
"The decision is an important step in the right direction, it consolidates the strategic alliance between Baghdad and Washington in many fields, and at their forefront war on terrorism," the Iraqi foreign ministry said.

Source: The National