Hours before it was to take effect, President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.
The ruling came as opponents renewed their 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 are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments about whether it should be put into practice early Thursday.
U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson decision prevents the executive order from going into effect, at least for now. Hawaii had requested a temporary restraining order.
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 measure 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. It doesn’t draw any religious distinctions,” 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.
“Generally, courts defer on national security to the government,” said U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. “Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?”
In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to Miller’s statement and said the government had put out misleading and contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific countries would make the nation safer.
The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it’s against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.
In the Hawaii case, the federal government said there was no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii officials offered only “generalized allegations” of harm.
Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General challenged Hawaii’s claim that the order violates due-process rights of Ismail Elshikh as a U.S. citizen who wants his mother-in-law to visit his family from Syria. He says courts have not extended due-process rights outside of a spousal relationship.
Neal Katyal, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing Hawaii, called the story of Elshiskh, an Egyptian immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, “the story of America.”
Wall told the judge that if he is inclined to issue an injunction, it should be tailored specifically to Hawaii and not nationwide.
In Washington state, U.S. District Judge James Robart — who halted the original ban last month — heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is making arguments similar to the ACLU’s in the Maryland case.
Robart said he is most interested in two questions presented by the group’s challenge to the ban: whether the ban violates federal immigration law, and whether the affected immigrants would be “irreparably harmed” should the ban go into effect.
He spent much of Wednesday afternoon’s hearing grilling the lawyers about two seeming conflicting federal laws on immigration — one which gives the president the authority to keep “any class of aliens” out of the country, and another that forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant visas.
Robart said he would issue a written order, but he did not say when. He is also overseeing the challenge brought by Washington state.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson argues that the new order harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon, which rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have joined the claim.
Washington and Hawaii say the order also violates the First Amendment, which bars the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. On that point, they say, the new ban is no different than the old. The states’ First Amendment claim has not been resolved.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the original ban but did not rule on the discrimination claim.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
8 Responses
Trump should ignore the judge!
This is ludicrous!
The libs have lost all credibility!
Really a bad order, even from the perspective of many who are skeptical of the Trump rationale and agenda on this issue. The Supreme court has said that a law must be evaluated based on the words of the statute (or in this cases an executive order governing the implementation of the statute), not the imputed intent of its proponent. In the first version of the executive order contained language granting special waivers for oppressed minorities (aka Christians) from the 7 countries. In the new version of the executive order, they dropped that language but the Judge concluded that since Trump has styled the order during the campaign as a “Muslim Travel Ban”, his real intent was based on the predominant religion of these countries, not any issues with vetting. This would violate Federal law under the so called establishment clause which prohibits government favoritism or discrimination against any particular religion.
Such baloney it’s tough to take. Firstly the idea that the immigrants rights aren’t being respected is probably the dumbest thing in the world since they aren’t citizens they’re not protected by the constitution. Undo harm?? How is that our problem? Trump statements show intent?? Do they know what’s in someone’s head? The president has absolute power on who and how immigrants are allowed into the country. These stupid (or crazy) liberal judges should be disbarred
They are trying to strip the power of the President by playing with the laws and judges. Obama used to run the government by executive order and ignore the laws. He controlled the DOJ and told them to only enforce the laws he wanted. Why can’t Trump do the same thing?
Can African Americans do what they want because of their race??? RACISM!!!
Those who suggest Trump should ignore the judges … what kind of country do they want? Those who say “the president has absolute power” … forget the Founding Fathers carefully set up checks and balances. The president has to obey the law, made by Congress with the President’s involvement, and interpreted by the Courts. Those who say immigrants don’t have “rights” … just how exactly did most of their ancestors get to America? Did the Native Americans use their courts to keep out immigrants? Was Ellis Island a den of liberal iniquity?
Savage urged his listeners to put aside for a moment the battle over health care and other issues and “look at the Trump presidency from the top,” to get a big-picture perspective on what is happening.
“Many people are frightened right now that his entire administration is in trouble,” he said.
“I am not.”
Savage continued:
I am not. This is what politics is all about, especially when you have an entrenched bureaucracy and an entrenched socialist, Islamist machine that refuses to go away.
They’re not going to leave within 60 or 90 days. We didn’t expect them to.
Wars take a long time. These are the initial battles of a longer war.
You have to understand that the health care issue, while key to it all in some ways, is not the only battle that we’re facing.
We’ve already won two battles, in case you don’t know it.
The military morale is way up. Our national security is way up.
You have to understand there are priorities to things.
And as I’ve said to you, and I have to say it again, even if we wind up getting 20 or 30 percent of what Trump promised during the campaign, that’s 120 or 130 more, at least, than we would have had if Hillary Clinton had won.
… We would have lost our freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country had Hillary won.
We have the First Amendment for the next four to eight years.
Second Amendment, guns — over, not touching them. Hillary would have seized your guns, one way or another.
So, you have to look at the big picture and don’t expect to get everything that you want.
You’re not going to do it.
It doesn’t occur in your life, it doesn’t occur in a political campaign. It doesn’t occur in a political administration.
We are way, way ahead of where we would have been had she seized power.
Do you understand that?
Now the battle has just begun. The illiberal fascist left is on the warpath.
They are beating people up with sticks and fists on the front lines of this fight.
The time will come when they are going to face real men very soon. And then you’re going to see something you don’t want to ever see in this country.
I’m not advocating it. I’m predicting it.
Read more at http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2017/03/michael-savage-newsletter-these-are-the-initial-battles-of-a-longer-war/#JhHFlJDCtV8WiK5v.99
Some background. The convention on refugees explicitly states that religion is one criteria for determining refugee status. Clearly in Syria where there are no Jews the top target for persecution are Christians, which is an example of exactly what the convention was addressing. So removing the criteria of religion is like violating the convention of refugees.
abcnews website states the following: Hawaii has about 5,000 Muslims, about 1% of the population. About 80 families have ties to one or more of the countries in the ban. So I comment (sarcastically) that this clearly shows the ban, which has maximum length of a few months, has such a disproportionate affect on Hawaii as to be unconscionable.
Thank goodness democracy is working as the founders intended. Trump and his band of amateur morons in the White House are learning the hard way that governing has rules.