Travel ban gets blocked again
Judge rules that Trump’s second attempt lacks evidence of terrorist threat
A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide halt Wednesday to President Trump’s temporary travel ban targeting six majority-Muslim countries. It was a stinging rebuke of Trump’s second attempt to institute the controversial order hours before it was to take effect.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s ban, saying he would reject any immediate appeals by the government.
Watson wrote in his ruling that the federal government had not proved the ban was needed to protect the USA from terrorists trying to infiltrate the country through legal immigration or the refugee program, citing a “dearth of evidence indicating a national security purpose.” He wrote that despite changes made by the White House to the new ban, it clearly violated constitutional protections of religion.
“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfa-
“The new executive order, just like the first executive order, meant to enact a state policy denigrating Muslims.” Karen Tumlin, National Immigration Law Center
vor a particular religion in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose,” Watson wrote.
Trump called the ruling an “unprecedented judicial overreach” during a rally in Nashville on Wednesday night.
Trump hinted that Watson’s ruling was motivated by “political reasons,” and said he would appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
The reaction from lawyers battling Trump’s order was swift.
“Aloha, TRO,” said Karen Tumlin, legal director for the National Immigration Law Center, referring to the legal shorthand for a temporary restraining order. “This finds, based on constitutional grounds, that indeed the new executive order, just like the first executive order, meant to enact a state policy denigrating Muslims.”
Trump’s second attempt to limit travel from those countries had an effective date of 12:01 a.m. ET Thursday. A group of states, immigration and refugee advocacy groups and private residents filed lawsuits to block the ban from going into effect, as happened when Trump issued his first travel ban in late January.
Judges in Hawaii, Maryland and Washington state heard arguments on those legal challenges, and Hawaii was the first to issue a ruling.
The executive order, signed by Trump on March 6, would have barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. It included several changes from the original ban struck down in court.
Iraq was removed from the list after its government agreed to enhanced screening of its citizens. An indefinite ban on Syrians was dropped. The new order made clear that nationals of those six countries with valid visas or legal permanent residence (known as green cards) would not be restricted from traveling.
During Wednesday’s hearings, government lawyers said those changes were designed to address the concerns raised by judges who blocked the first order. They said the government removed a section of the original order that gave preference to persecuted religious minorities, which President Trump said was designed to help Christians trying to immigrate from those majority Muslim countries.
Lawyers trying to block Trump’s order argued that those tweaks didn’t change the underlying problem of the order — that it discriminated against Muslims. Those groups called Trump’s new order “Muslim Ban 2.0” and said it represented the illegal implementation of his campaign promise to institute a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
The first hearing Wednesday took place in Greenbelt, Md., before U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. A group of refugee resettlement organizations filed suit, claiming the new order violated the religious freedom of refugees and sections of the Constitution and federal law.
Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said the judge pressed both sides on their claims: He asked government lawyers why he couldn’t look at all of Trump’s comments regarding Muslim immigration and asked the refugee rights attorneys whether Trump is forbidden to limit immigration from anywhere in the world because of his campaign comments. Gelernt said the judge asked about whether a nationwide ban or a more limited halt would be an appropriate remedy.
Chuang finished the hearing without issuing a ruling, saying he would decide soon.
The next hearing was held in Hawaii..
The final hearing was held in Washington state before the same judge who blocked Trump’s first travel ban last month, U.S. District Judge James Robart.