Richard Friedman, the Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law, is an expert on evidence and U.S. Supreme Court history.
"The new executive order removes some of the obvious vulnerabilities of the prior one," he said. "First, it does not apply to persons who already had a right to enter the United States. Second, it gives explicit preference to religious minorities. Third, it removes Iraq from the list of seven countries, suggesting that the administration has paid some attention to facts on the ground. Fourth, it no longer creates a permanent ban on travel from Syria. And fifth, it postpones effectiveness to allow a more orderly rollout.
"But the order is not immune to challenge. The president cannot escape the history behind this order, which indicated a desire to prevent Muslim entry to the U.S. Subsequent events have suggested that, realizing this was impossible, he continues to try to achieve as much of it as he can. And the order is still subject to attack as arbitrary and capricious, given the lack of history of terrorist attacks on the US by people from the list of six countries. One may also wonder why, if the Government needed a temporary halt on travel in January to improve vetting procedures, the time periods in the new order are the same as in the first. Has it been sitting on its hands all these weeks?"
Contact: 734-476-4586, firstname.lastname@example.org