I spoke with the National Law Review in the wake of the Supreme Court’s December 4 decision to allow President Trump’s third version of the travel ban to go into effect.
“Given [Monday’s] ruling, both the Fourth and the Ninth circuit are going to try to be extra careful in justifying however they come out,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University and of counsel at Miller Mayer. “I think [the] Supreme Court orders signal that the administration may well win at the Supreme Court and that may influence, to a certain extent, how the Fourth and the Ninth circuit rule.”
Travel ban 3.0 differs from its two predecessors in that it expands the list of countries banned to include Venezuela and North Korea. It also includes restrictions that vary based on country in an effort to encourage those countries to adhere to proper procedures.
“For that reason, although an objective person may question how thorough the review is or whether it really matches up with what’s going on, given the very low standard of review, the Supreme Court may well say, it isn’t perfect but it’s good enough,” Yale-Loehr said.
The article can be accessed with a subscription to the National Law Review, here.