Judge in Hawaii blocks Trump travel ban
Challenges to ban filed in several states
GREENBELT, Md. — Hours before it was to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii put President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on hold Wednesday after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.
The ruling came as opponents renewed legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.
More than half a dozen states filed lawsuits to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments about whether it should be put into practice early today.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson’s decision prevents the executive order from going into effect, at least for now. Hawaii had requested a temporary restraining order.
New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas joined an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief this week in support of Hawaii’s challenge to the executive order.
The amicus brief, filed by 13 states and the District of Columbia, asked the federal court hearing Hawaii’s lawsuit to block Trump’s executive order.
“Discriminating against people for their religion is un-American and unconstitutional, and as such, I will fight President Trump’s new travel ban in court alongside other states,” Balderas said in a statement. “Additionally, New Mexico cannot afford to have our hospitals, research facilities and universities negatively impacted by this illegal order.
The states’ amicus brief says the immigration ban is preventing states from hiring doctors and professors, harming university recruitment of foreign students and causing economic losses from reduced travel and tourism.
After Watson’s ruling, Balderas released a statement saying, “I am pleased that the judge agreed that this new executive order was enacted with a clear, discriminatory intent to act as a poorly-disguised Muslim ban, and that the ban would harm our universities and economy in New Mexico.”
Hawaii also argued that the ban would prevent residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six countries covered by the order. The state says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.
In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the order still discriminates against Muslims.
Government attorneys argued that the ban was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of an exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries.
“It doesn’t say anything about religion,” said Jeffrey Wall, who argued for the Justice Department.
Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that Trump’s statements on the campaign trail and statements from his advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is to ban Muslims. Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has said the revised order was designed to have “the same basic policy outcome” as the first.
The new version of the ban details more of a national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns about violating the due-process rights of travelers.
It applies only to new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to travelers who already have visas.