Trump Travel Ban & Restrictions Go Into Effect Monday | Michael Wynne Speaks With Fox News Live
Resurrecting and expanding a hallmark policy from his first term, President Donald Trump has banned citizens of 12 countries from entering the United States and restricted access for those from seven countries, citing national security concerns. Those affected are primarily from Africa and the Middle East.
Attorney Michael Wynne joined Fox News LiveNOW to discuss the implications of the ban and restrictions, its likelihood of being challenged in court, and if a challenge is likely to be successful. Here is a summary of the exchange between Michael and Fox News reporter Christy Matino.
Q. Why did he implement the travel ban? What is the overarching goal?
Michael: I am sure he does not do this with any glee whatsoever, and maybe he didn’t want to, but recent events… most recently in Boulder, Colorado as well as the heightening escalation in Gaza and in Ukraine suggest that really the time has come that he needs to do something to protect the American people.
Q. What legal authority does the president have to implement something like this?
Michael: He has full authority under both the Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act which was at issue last time. The important thing here is this is a proclamation rather than an Executive Order, which was immediately challenged back in the first Trump administration.
Q. How do national security concerns play into the legality of this proclamation?
Michael: Well, the President as part of our government, the way our laws are now, has full and complete authority to… unless the action is entirely arbitrary and capricious, to govern who comes into and who leaves the country, as long as you can articulate a national security interest. In this case, he sure well did, In reading the proclamation, the countries identified are extremely limited and in the case of Somalia, no checks and balances of who may get a visa coming into the country.
So, as the President said, this is a fluid process. More countries may be added, and some may be taken off the list, depending on whether those governments implement the necessary checks and balances to ensure that those coming into the country have at least in some manner been screened. In fact, that is consistent with the remarks I have read so far from these governments…Chad, Somalia, and others this morning.
Q. For those that may want to challenge this, what are some of the main arguments that may be used against
this?
Michael: Well, those arguments are going to be far less successful than they were back in 2017 because the administration has couched this so very carefully… identifying in the order really the reasons for it and the statistics backing it up. The challenge might be what used to be called substantive due process, which would be the only real limitation without amending the Immigration Nationality Act. The argument would be that the President did this for no rational reasonable basis whatsoever. That’s simply going to fail because of what we saw just last week in Boulder, Colorado.
Q. How is this going to impact immigration visa holders and refugees? Can you dive a little more into this?
Michael: Sure. It’s going to create far more, I suppose, uncertainty and anxiety for those already here but the proclamation only applies to those entering into the United States at this time and there are a myriad of exceptions including, perhaps most interesting, for athletes and their direct families coming into the United States say for the World Cup. …Those already here are not subject to it. I also have to note this is a policy proclamation. While it is law, it doesn’t have the binding force of law that would be in play with an executive order. So, the administration thought long and hard about how to write this, how to couch it, and I really think it’s going to be immune from challenge.
Q. We saw President Trump do something similar in his first term, when he placed a ban on travelers from several Muslim majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Do you think this is going through a similar process?
Michael: No. No, I don’t think it will…. I think any challenge should be struck down immediately in a federal district court based on precedent.