A new verdict on the trump travel ban: what has been stopped and why?
President trump’s second attempt at a “travel ban” was supposed to take effect on Thursday. Instead, the central component of the executive order has been blocked by judges across the country.
In both cases, the judge is heavily dependent on trump and his advisers public statements, thinks that although in religion “surface” is neutral, but this is a command against muslims.
As we have already reported, the order will reject the citizens of Iran, Libya, somalia, Sudan, Syria and yemen within 90 days, and suspend American refugees for 120 days. (Iraqi citizens, those who already have visas and those who have completed their travel plans are exempt from this order – although they are banned in the first edition of the travel ban.)
The first order caused confusion, arguing that the second had nothing to do with fear and uncertainty.
The initial ban was blocked by the federal court, and the appeals court upheld the lower court’s ruling. The new version should address the court’s objections.
But the judge, Hawaii, Maryland – the original for first order filing decision – find these changes did not solve potential concern, is also effective to prevent it. A third court in Washington state has refused to enforce previous restraints, but is expected to demand that the revised order be blocked.
From Hawaii: a wide range of provisional orders.
On Wednesday night, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked a ban on citizens from six countries and suspended the refugee program. He imposed a temporary restraining order, a short-term measure aimed at preventing irreparable damage during the court proceedings.
U.S. district court judge Derrick k. Watson relied heavily on Mr. Trump’s public statements on his advisers, saying that “reasonable, objective observers” would conclude that the order was aimed at muslims.
“The government warned properly, the court in determining the purpose, should not consider government policymakers’ hidden psychological ‘and’ secret motive, also should not be ‘authors heart heart judicial psychological analysis. …
The important fact that “the government don’t have to worry about, here don’t need this survey does not allow, for example, nothing in this press release is” hidden “:” Donald j. trump called for thorough closed muslims to enter the United States. ‘”
Mr. Trump later said he had changed “the territory of speech, not the muslims,” because “when I use the word Muslim, people are very upset,” Mr. Watson said. In a discussion of the first executive order, Rudy giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, said he had asked if he had found a “legal” way to impose a Muslim ban.
In short, Watson found that there was “an important and uncertain evidence of the religious hostility that drove executive orders”.
In a statement in response to Hawaii’s ruling, the justice department said it was “flawed in reasoning and in scope”.
And, at a rally on Wednesday night in Nashville, Tennessee, said trump, he thinks that his government should return to the original ruling – rather than “down” the second version – and “the way” the Supreme Court.
From Maryland: a narrower ban.
In a decision released earlier Thursday, a federal judge in Maryland blocked one of the travel bans – affecting the citizens of the six countries. Despite the plaintiff’s request, he did not intervene in the order to suspend the refugee programme.
The judge, Theodore d. Chuang, issued a preliminary injunction – a more durable blockade that could last longer than the restrictions issued in Hawaii.
Like Watson, zhuang also listed a public statement by Mr Trump and his advisers about the “Muslim ban”. On the analysis of the order, he said, there is no reason to ignore these comments – because the court precedent that “the world is not in the morning will become the new”, “reasonable observer has reasonable memory”. (this seems to be a response to the court’s argument that Mr Trump’s pre-inauguration rhetoric should not be considered.)
He also directly questioned the trump administration’s assertion that the ban was largely driven by national security interests.
As the trump administration has repeatedly stressed, the court should generally recommend national security decisions to the executive branch, Chuang wrote. But he said there was “strong evidence” that any such concern was secondary to religious bias.
After all, he reasoned, if security was at the centre of the issue, would Mr Trump be authorised by the “relevant national security apparatus” before the original injunction, rather than later?
The travel ban “bears no resemblance to any other government response to national security risks”. But it was “clearly similar” to Mr Trump’s description of how he enacted the Muslim ban, Chuang wrote.
The justice department has filed an appeal for the fourth circuit court of appeals to overturn the decision.
In Washington state: consider the second restraining order.
Judge James l. Robart, a judge in Washington, d.c., blocked a planned travel ban in February.
The state in question asked Robart to extend the moratorium so it could cover the new version.
But on Thursday, Robart announced that he had rejected the request.
He said there was a “significant difference” between the original order and the revised order – including the narrowing of new orders and the abolition of religious references – which meant that it had to be considered separately.
Robart is still likely to issue new temporary restraints. Washington v. trump has asked for it, and the judge is not expected to extend it for the first time.
Another individual case before Robart – not by the state but by a group of individuals – also required him to stop the new order.
Robart heard the case on Wednesday; It is not clear when he will respond.