A federal judge in Hawaii has placed a nationwide block on President Trump’s revised travel order, delivering a major blow to the president’s policy just hours before it was set to go into effect.
The Hill reports,
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, a President Obama appointee, ruled after a hearing on Wednesday that the plaintiffs, the state of Hawaii and a Muslim leader, showed a “strong” likelihood to succeed in their lawsuit against the ban. They argue that the policy violates the Establishment Clause and proved that “irreparable harm” is likely if temporary relief is not granted.The temporary restraining order, which will be in place while the judge considers the case, blocks the sections of the travel ban that would have temporarily suspended the refugee resettlement program and barred nationals from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. The policy was set to go into effect just after midnight.
Hawaii became the first state to sue the administration over the new ban issued last week, which was designed to better stand up to legal challenges than the first version. Attorneys for the state sued over Trump’s first order and argued that the revised version was still unconstitutional.The administration made several deliberate changes designed to hold up better in court, such as dropping Iraq from the list of banned nations, scrapping an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, removing language giving preference to religious minorities when the refugee program resumes, and specifically exempting legal U.S. residents and certain visa holders.
A major crux of Hawaii’s argument is that Trump’s intent behind the executive order is to institute a “Muslim ban,” which they say would be a form of religious discrimination.The government has denied that the ban targets Muslims specifically because it applies to all individuals from certain countries, an argument Watson called “equally flawed.”“The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote in the 43-page order. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”
“It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7 percent to 99.8 percent,” he wrote. “It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.”
The plaintiffs pointed to comments made by Trump’s own adviser Stephen Miller to argue that both versions of the travel ban are “fundamentally” similar and would have the same impact.
“Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed,” Miller told Fox News last month. “But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.”
The administration urged the court not to read into “secret motives” or the “veiled psyche” of policymakers, and said there is a difference between statements made by a candidate and an elected official.
Continue reading at The Hill