WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday canceled arguments on President Donald Trump's travel ban that had been scheduled for Oct. 10, after the president issued a revised ban that adds three countries to the list of nations facing restrictions on entering the U.S.
The court asked lawyers in the case to submit briefs by Oct. 5 discussing the effect of Trump's new proclamation, issued Sunday as a replacement for his revised travel ban, which had been issued in March.
The new order indefinitely bans almost all travel to the United States from seven countries, including most of the nations covered by his original travel ban, citing threats to national security posed by letting their citizens into the country.
Two groups that are challenging the earlier version of the policy at the Supreme Court said they still see the restrictions as targeting Muslims. That's even though the new policy adds two countries with few Muslims, banning everyone from North Korea and some government officials from Venezuela.
[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selected immigration statistics, U.S. border map]
"The fact that Trump has added North Korea -- with few visitors to the U.S. -- and a few government officials from Venezuela doesn't obfuscate the real fact that the administration's order is still a Muslim ban," Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
The justices asked the parties to address "whether, or to what extent, the proclamation" may render the case moot. The court also asked for briefings on a question not addressed in the proclamation, concerning the earlier ban's suspension of the nation's refugee program. That suspension is to expire next month. On that question, too, the court asked the parties to explain whether the issue would soon be moot.
By canceling the arguments for now, the court signaled that it may never decide the case.
"The cases are removed from the oral argument calendar, pending further order of the court," the court said.
[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 200 days]
If the court does eventually dismiss the case as moot, a further legal question will remain. The Trump administration will ask the court to vacate the appeals court decisions striking down the earlier ban, while the challengers will ask that the decisions remain on the books.
NEW PROCLAMATION
"As president, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people," Trump wrote Sunday in a proclamation announcing the changes for citizens from specific nations. On Twitter, he added: "Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet."
The new travel policy aims to bolster Trump's legal case by tailoring the restrictions on a country-by-country basis and laying out reasons particular nations were included. The revised policy comes after the Department of Homeland Security sent Trump a classified report assessing which countries don't provide adequate information about their traveling citizens.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke said in a statement that the restrictions "are tough and tailored, and they send a message to foreign governments that they must work with us to enhance security."
The Department of Homeland Security will have the authority to add or remove travel restrictions on countries as conditions change, a senior administration official said.
Three nations were added to the list of countries whose citizens will face the restrictions: Chad, North Korea and Venezuela -- although the restrictions on Venezuela are narrowly crafted, targeting that country's leaders and their family members.
The five countries that remain on the list are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Sudan was part of the earlier ban but was removed under Trump's new orders.
The new restrictions will be phased in over time, officials said, and the restrictions will not affect anyone who already holds a U.S. visa. For those visitors affected by the changed restrictions, the new rules will go into effect Oct. 18, according to the proclamation.
Both of Trump's orders have been blocked by judges, but the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect with a significant caveat. The administration, the court said, could not block from entering the country those with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as family members or those with firm offers of employment.
The ban on citizens of the six countries was to last 90 days; the ban on refugees was to last 120 days. The refugee ban is set to expire Oct. 24, and it was not immediately clear what impact the new restrictions might have on it.
REACTIONS TO NEW BAN
The addition of Chad to Trump's travel ban took the Chadian government by surprise and bewildered analysts of Central Africa.
With a mixed population of Muslims and Christians, Chad has been a longtime U.S. ally in fighting Islamist militants in the region, including offshoots of al-Qaida and Boko Haram, and its troops took part in a French-led effort to root out Islamist militants from parts of Mali in 2013.
In a statement, the government expressed "its incomprehension in the face of the official reasons for this decision, which contrasts with Chad's constant efforts and commitments in the fight against terrorism." It called on Trump to rethink the decision, "which has seriously affected the image of Chad and the good relations maintained by the two countries."
The government said it does not want to have to resort to a similar ban on Americans traveling to Chad, "which would be prejudicial to the interests of both countries," adding it was "open to any discussions likely to strengthen its collaboration with the United States of America on security and counterterrorism issues."
In a report on Chad last year, the State Department said few Chadians join terrorist groups and that the country had tightened its borders to impede the movements of militants. But it said a financial crisis kept the country from consistently paying police and military salaries, which presented some risk.
It was not immediately clear what led to a special carve-out that permits Iranian students, but not most other Iranians, to continue to obtain visas to travel to the U.S.
Iran sends more students to America than the other countries affected by the ban -- 12,269 of them in the 2015-16 academic year, according to the Institute of International Education -- and many are graduate students in scientific fields who also serve as teaching assistants.
Pedram Gharghabi, 31, a doctoral candidate and research assistant in electrical engineering at Mississippi State University, said Monday that the implications of the ban were not yet clear but would probably lead to hardships even for exempted students.
"My understanding is that our families will not be allowed to enter the United States for a visit," Gharghabi said. Because many Iranian students' visas are single-entry and do not permit the students to leave and come back, he said, "that means we may not meet our families for years."
For citizens in some conflict zones, news of the latest travel ban was met with weary shrugs.
"How many times are we meant to condemn this man?" Mohamed Al Amad, a Yemeni journalist in Sanaa, said of Trump. "Most Yemenis are too busy feeling bad about the American bombs that Saudi Arabia is dropping on them to think about Trump's silly ban."
In the Libyan city of Misrata, Ali Busitta, a municipal official, said that "the travel ban is wrong and it is offensive," and added, "We understand that the terrorism in Libya looks scary, but you can't just say that we are all bad."
Most Libyans are occupied with the more pressing and often violent problems confronting their country, Busitta said. "Frankly, they are too distracted by what's going on to care about this ban or that ban."
Information for this article was contributed by Adam Liptak, Dionne Searcey, Jaime Yaya Barry, Stephanie Saul, Nour Yousseff and Declan Walsh of The New York Times; by Greg Stohr, Terrence Dopp, Toluse Olorunnipa, Patricia Hurtado, Erik Larson and Kartikay Mehrotra of Bloomberg News; and by Robert Barnes and Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post.
A Section on 09/26/2017