Trump’s second travel ban, which had been due to go into effect just hours before the Hawaii ruling, had been created to avoid some of the legal complaints of the first order.
Advertisement
It said the federal government can’t enforce the new travel ban unless it asks Judge Robart to modify his original restraining order.
After the first travel ban was blocked in court, President Trump signed a new executive order last week temporarily blocking travel to the USA from countries he said pose a high terrorism risk. Watson issued the temporary order, which bars enforcement of the travel ban at least until the judge can consider whether to convert it to a preliminary injunction.
The judge’s order is likely to be appealed by the Trump administration. Watson was able to cite statements from Trump’s own aides – including a statement from senior adviser Stephen Miller just before the revised ban was announced – admitting that the initial travel ban was targeted at Muslims and that the second ban was created to achieve the same outcome as the first one. Also, it said Christians refugees from the countries would get preferential treatment.
“While the threat of terrorism is a serious one, it is still unconscionable to bar people from traveling and to allow refugees’ disgusting, uncertain situations to continue”, Kennedy (sophomore-international politics) said.
The Maryland suit was originally filed against the first ban and amended to tackle the rewritten one.
Watson wrote that he also could not accept the administration’s contention that the “neutral text is what this Court must rely on to evaluate objective”, quoting the 9 Circuit to support his contention that it “is well established that evidence of goal beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims”.
Demonstrators rally during a small protest of President Donald Trump’s proposed travel ban and suspension of the country’s refugee program, March 16, 2017 in New York City. A split would set the stage for U.S. Supreme Court to make a final decision.
A federal judge in Hawaii has granted a nationwide stay of President Trump’s temporary travel ban from six countries.
A Syrian “John Doe” plaintiff living in Wisconsin successfully argued that the new travel ban is preventing him from reuniting with his wife and child who are now trapped in Aleppo.
Hawaii and the other plaintiff in the case believe department’s motion will “unduly delay resolution” of the case and have indicated that they will file an opposition brief, according to court filings.
No notice of appeal had been filed in that case late Friday and a statement from a Justice Department spokeswoman confirming the Maryland appeal made no mention of the Hawaii case.
The president issued his revised order March 6 to try to fix practical and legal problems with the original that resulted in chaos and protests at USA airports and ended in court decisions preventing its implementation. But the revised ban still retains the same major problem as the first – only targeting predominantly Muslim countries.
Critics of the ban said the changes made it more palatable, but they still argued that it violated both the Constitution and federal immigration law, and they tweaked their lawsuits to target the revised order. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.
Advertisement
“We feel both bans, Version 1 and Version 2, are delivering on Trump’s promise to some of the far-right groups that he is going to have a Muslim ban”, Hakim Ouasanfi told me by phone Thursday.
