Thirteen states filed an amicus brief on Monday supporting President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on nationals entering the United States from the six countries identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

Twelve state attorneys general and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant filed the amicus brief which claims the president’s immigration order is lawful and well within his authority.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that blocked the original order.

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial

The attorneys general who joined the brief were from Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

The 36-page amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit indicates that states do not have the authority to “restrict or set the terms of aliens’ entry into the United States for public-safety and national-security reasons.” The federal executive branch, pursuant to the laws of Congress, has that authority, the brief argues.

“Congress delegated to the Executive Branch significant authority to prohibit alien’s entry into the country, and the challenged Executive Order is a lawful exercise of that authority,” the brief states.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that blocked the original order.

Quick - Do This Before Biden “Fixes” Your Retirement Plan Next …

[lz_ndn video=32178692]

The brief asks the court to “grant defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal and ultimately reverse the district court’s order enjoining the Executive Order.”

Who Is A Bigger Threat To America?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“Rather than leaving national security in limbo while litigation dragged on, President Trump issued a revised immigration order that addresses the 9th Circuit’s concerns and is a vital step in securing our borders,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a prepared statement.

“It is imperative we find a way to better screen refugee applicants to maintain national security. The president is fulfilling his solemn duty to protect Texans and all Americans,” said Paxton.

“National security falls squarely within the responsibility of the federal government,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, in an email to LifeZette. “Our Constitution does not give states that authority, and therefore the safety of all West Virginians relies upon a strong federal government that enforces admissions in a fair and just manner — this executive order does just that.”

Citing two cases, the amicus brief says excluding aliens is a core federal power.

“The exclusion of aliens is also a core federal prerogative: a power ‘inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers — a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government.'” the brief states.

It also argues the executive order is not a “pretext to religious discrimination” as it is based on national security concerns and does not classify aliens based on religion but on nationality. It also points out the six countries in the order were identified by Congress and the Obama administration as “countries of concern.”

[lz_related_box id=506412]

“Before the current presidential Administration took office, multiple federal officials — including the FBI Director, the former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, and the former Director of National Intelligence — expressed concerns with deficiencies in the country’s ability to vet the entry of aliens,” according to the amicus brief.

The brief also claims the court should not rely on Washington v. Trump as it was “wrongly decided” by the 9th Circuit panel.

“The Executive Order does not violate due process because nonresident aliens abroad have no liberty interest in seeking admission into the country; therefore, no constitutional claims accrue from a suspension of those aliens’ ability to enter,” the brief states.