© Getty

The Trump administration released Monday a revised version of its immigration Executive Order to address the concerns raised in an appeals court decision, but those criticisms were always fundamentally irrational and not based in the text of the Order.

President Donald Trump’s original Executive Order (EO), Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was challenged by two states in a U.S. District Court. The District Court preliminarily ruled in the states’ favor and temporarily ordered the government to stop enforcing the EO.

The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and moved for an emergency stay to reinstate the EO pending the outcome of its appeal. The Circuit Court was not convinced that the government was likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal, so it denied the government’s motion for a stay.

If Trump had appealed the Circuit Court’s decision to the Supreme Court, he would have been a shoo-in to win. He opted instead to replace the EO with a revised version that, although it responds to the Circuit Court’s decision, is still battered by virtually the same criticism.

Read more at http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...the-way-to-the

Published originally on The Hill.

About the author.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.