One of the most contentious Executive Orders signed by United States President Donald Trump went into effect at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 29. Executive Order 13769 is being called Travel Ban 2.0 because the original order signed in March was deemed to be in contravention of the Constitution in light of the fact that Trump has previously mentioned his intention to enact an egregious “Muslim ban.”
The order issues a 90-day entry prohibition for certain travelers from the following nations:
The onus being placed on travelers from the aforementioned countries is that they can only enter if they already have an approved visa that proves that they have an established, good faith relationship in the US. An example of such relationship would be a Syrian man traveling to visit his American wife; another example would be a professional athlete from Somalia who has signed a contract to play with a Major League Soccer club.
Furthermore, refugees from any nation will not be allowed to enter for the next 120 days. Unlike the first disastrous order, which only lasted a few hours before it was struck down in federal court, Travel Ban 2.0 will not prohibit entry to travelers who already have an approved visa as well as an established relationship.
As soon as the current order went into effect, a legal challenge arose in Hawaii. An emergency motion was filed in federal court by people concerned that the range of familial relationships promulgated by the Trump administration does not make sense; for example, grandparents are banned but in-laws are not. Engaged couples who are separated by distance were also affected by the ban up until literally hours before the order came into effect, when a sudden reversal was made for this group.
The first legal challenge to Travel Ban 2.0 is essentially calling out the flawed interpretation of what the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to do. It almost seems as if Trump just wants to keep as many people out as possible for the next 90 days, but that is not how the laws of the US work.
On the issue of denying entry to refugees, legal analysts are expecting to see major challenges, perhaps from the international community. The Supreme Court promised to review the order again in October; only time will tell if it will remain in effect until then.