TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN DENIED AGAIN
Ruling sets up another showdown on extent of executive branch’s powers
A federal judge blocks the administration’s latest version of the president’s controversial travel ban in a decision that’s sure to be appealed.
A federal judge Tuesday largely blocked the Trump administration from implementing the latest version of the president’s controversial travel ban, setting up yet another legal showdown on the extent of the executive branch’s powers when it comes to setting immigration policy.
The decision, from Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, is sure to be appealed, but for now, it means that the administration cannot restrict the entry of travelers from six of the eight countries that officials said were either unable or unwilling to provide information that the United States wanted to vet their citizens.
The latest ban was set to fully go into effect in the early hours of Wednesday, barring various types of travelers from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. Watson’s order stops it, at least temporarily, with respect to all the countries except North Korea and Venezuela.
In a 40-page decision granting the state of Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order and blocking President Donald Trump’s order nationwide, Watson wrote that the latest ban “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.’ ”
Watson also wrote that the executive order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a way that was opposed to federal law and “the founding principles of this nation.”
Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior said the department would appeal in an “expeditious manner.” “Today’s ruling is incorrect, fails to properly respect the separation of powers, and has the potential to cause serious negative consequences for our national security,” he said.
The Supreme Court had been scheduled to hear arguments on Trump’s second travel ban, inked in March, which barred the entry of citizens from six Muslim majority countries and refugees from everywhere. But a key portion of that ban expired and Trump issued his latest ban before the hearing. That prompted the justices to remove oral arguments from the calendar. They later dismissed one of the challenges to the March version of the ban.
Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project and others who had sued over the March travel ban asked judges to block the new one in federal courts in Hawaii, Washington and Maryland. They argued that Trump had exceeded his legal authority to set immigration policy, and the latest measure -- like the last two --- fulfilled his unconstitutional campaign promise to implement a Muslim ban.
As of Tuesday afternoon, the judges in Hawaii and Washington had yet to rule.
Watson did not address whether the ban was constitutional; rather, he limited his analysis to whether Trump had exceeded the authority that Congress has given the president to impose restrictions on those wanting to enter the United States. Of particular concern, he said, was that officials seemed to treat someone’s nationality as an indicator of the threat they pose — without providing evidence of a connection.