BREAKING: Previously undisclosed statements obtained by Slate raise questions about the travel ban’s legality, just as the Supreme Court gets set to rule in Trump v. Hawaii. slate.com/news-and-polit…
2/ The ban prevents nearly all individuals from several majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. unless they receive special waivers. In court, government lawyers have justified the ban by pointing to this process of offering “case-by-case” waivers to deserving applicants
3/ Slate has obtained statements from two consular officers tasked with implementing the travel ban. Those statements appear to contradict the government’s description of the waiver process. One called the process a “fraud.” slate.com/news-and-polit…
4/ Government lawyers have argued that consular officers have full discretion to grant visa waivers. According to one consular officer, however, the waiver process in fact has “no rational basis” and presents a Catch-22 for applicants.
5/ Another consular officer, Christopher Richardson, stated in a sworn affidavit that "there really is no waiver [process]." 
6/ In that affidavit, Richardson also stated that his "understanding was no one is to be eligible" to receive a visa waiver. slate.com/news-and-polit…
7/ The State Department reported that in the first month of the travel ban, it received 8,406 visa applications subject to the waiver process. It approved two. That’s a 0.02% success rate.
8/ During oral arguments, Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in the travel ban case, appeared swayed by the government's argument that Trump's travel ban was similar to immigration orders issued by previous presidents. slate.com/news-and-polit…
9/ These new claims from two consular officers now raise significant questions regarding the government’s assertions about how the travel ban works in practice.
Read the full story: slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read the full story: slate.com/news-and-polit…
