Challengers back at Supreme Court hoping to block latest travel ban

Travel ban 3.0, issued on September 24, places varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.

So far, in two separate challenges, the ban has been partially blocked.

In one case, brought by the state of Hawaii, a district court judge blocked the ban from going into effect except as it pertains to Venezuela and North Korea. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially lifted that order. The appeals court allowed the ban to come into effect except for foreign nationals who have "bona fide" relationships with people or entities in the United States. The language of the order was adopted from a Supreme Court order pertaining to an earlier version of the ban.

In a separate challenge out of Maryland brought by, among others, the International Refugee Assistance Project, US District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a similar order also partially enjoining the ban in a case that is now pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both cases are scheduled to be heard before the appeals court next week.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco defended the ban, arguing that "the Constitution and acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prevent aliens abroad from entering this country when he deems it in the nation's interest." Francisco argued that the ban was necessary "in order to protect national security."

He also sought to differentiate the President's most recent ban from prior iterations.

"It is the product of a review process undertaken by multiple Cabinet officers and government officials," Francisco wrote, "and it is based on express findings of inadequacies in the information sharing practices, identity-management protocols, and risk factors of certain countries."