The Corner

Has the Travel Ban Already Been Defeated?

Reports tonight are that the administration won’t immediately take the executive order case to the Supreme Court and it may re-write the order. I’m with those, including Charles Krauthammer as related in the post below, who think this makes a lot of sense.

Consider the the current state of play: Unless the administration has some clever stratagem that pulls a legal rabbit out of a hat, it’s hard to see how the travel ban hasn’t already been effectively defeated. With every day that passes with the ban suspended, the case for its rapid imposition (stopping dangerous people from flowing here) as well as its overall rationale (to allow for a pause while better procedures are established) gets weaker. Any radical who was on the verge of coming here prior to the ban is presumably on his way now, and there’s nothing stopping the administration from setting up tighter procedures while the executive order case is proceeding, which makes the argument for re-imposing the ban at some later date if the case is somehow decided in the administration’s favor more tenuous.

The backdrop here is what appears to be a legal box canyon. If the administration did take its argument up to the Supreme Court, it seems likely that it would lose, assuming that the Court even takes the case now (it might  very well pass, letting the inevitable preliminary injunction that will come from Judge Robart and the 9th Circuit play itself out). Maybe the administration can delay, waiting for Judge Gorsuch to get confirmed, but even with him on the Court, victory is not assured.

The administration, though, has the unilateral power to re-shape the debate and moot the current proceedings. It could re-fashion the executive order by, say, removing the issue with lawful permanent residents and giving up on the temporary ban, while focusing on stricter vetting through visa issuance procedures at the embassies and via secondary screenings at the airports. This wouldn’t make the legal attacks go away. But it would shift the terrain in the administration’s favor at the same time it wouldn’t give up the core of the policy, as Krauthammer persuasively argues. Remember: the temporary ban is not supposed to be about the temporary ban, but about providing a bridge to stricter vetting.

An opponent of giving any ground whatsoever might say there is an important principle at stake here about an over-reaching judiciary, and of course there is. But that makes it all the more important to fight shrewdly, and the current path seems likely to provide the occasion for very bad law that is a enormous victory for the Left on immigration going forward (just read the 9th circuit ruling for the worst case). So, there is a good argument that the best tack isn’t SEE YOU IN COURT, but SEE MY NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER.

Rich Lowry — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

U.S.

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Religion

Billy Graham: Neither Prophet nor Theologian

Asked in 1972 if he believed in miracles, Billy Graham answered: Yes, Jesus performed some and there are many "miracles around us today, including television and airplanes." Graham was no theologian. Neither was he a prophet. Jesus said "a prophet hath no honor in his own country." Prophets take adversarial ... Read More
Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More