Judge Nap: Why Trump's New Travel Ban May Fare Better in Court
Judge Andrew Napolitano joined "The First 100 Days" to explain how President Trump's second attempt at an executive ban on travel from select countries may have a better shot at permanence.
Napolitano said that by effectively replacing the first travel ban from January, Trump's order "undercuts" the 48 lawsuits filed against it.
In the original order, one level of judicial objection centered around the fact no reason was given for the then-seven affected countries.
Napolitano said by removing Iraq from the list and giving a "non-classified summary" of dangers posed by individuals in the six remaining nations, the government may be on better ground if it is sued.
If lawsuits are posed, he said, there is a chance they will fall under the purview of different circuit courts with less liberal benches.
Compared to the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit, where the most visible objection to the first travel ban was heard, Napolitano said litigants could find themselves elsewhere, like before the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit, a more conservative bench.
He also said that there is a better chance than there was in January that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be "Justice" Neil Gorsuch by the time any litigation makes its way to the high court, resulting in a better chance of victory for President Trump.