Judge rejects request to clarify travel order

But statements from Trump and his team, especially when combined with his continued inclusion of a 90-day ban on foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, have proved – at least for now – insurmountable in court.

“We do not believe the motion is necessary because the court’s order was clear”. Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama appointee, used his 43-page opinion to wage a personal war against the president, hurling verbal insults at the Commander-in-Chief instead of providing legal analysis to justify his temporary restraining order (TRO).

The cases are State of Hawaii v. Trump, 17-cv-00050, US District Court, District of Hawaii (Honolulu), and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 17-0361, US District Court of Maryland.

Trump says the temporary bans are matters of national security.

In court filings, the Department of Justice argues that the president has broad powers to protect the nation.

Both judges pointed to explicit comments from the President and his allies about a “Muslim ban”, and Trump’s infamous call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” in a December 2015 press release. That block was upheld on appeal, and the administration said it would revise the ban to better adhere to the law. This year they declined to hear a potentially landmark case about transgender rights that they had previously said they would hear. He set an expedited hearing schedule to determine if his ruling should be extended. The state of Hawaii had sued the government, claiming that the ban specifically targets its Muslim residents.

Refugees were blocked from entering the country for 120 days in both orders, but an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria was dropped in the new one. The order also includes waiver provisions for people who seek to reside with a family member admitted to the United States legally and the man can’t show he’s been harmed, they wrote.

Government lawyers in Maryland argued that the updated version of the travel order had undergone substantial revisions and that it is necessary in the interests of national security in order to protect the United States from “radical Islamic terrorism”.

Like Watson, Chuang also listed public statements from Trump and his advisers about a “Muslim ban”.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey strongly oppose the ban and has now joined in with other states to fight it. Robart was appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush.

The nationwide preliminary injunction will remain in place indefinitely until it is either lifted by the Maryland judge or overturned by a higher court.

Watson indicated that the court would not stay its decision in the event of an appeal. Now the man wants Conley to issue an injunction, which would further cement the court’s protection.

The previous order was struck down by the USA 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“More fundamentally, Plaintiff misses the point: the Order’s objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks before they occur”, the government’s brief said.

The court can not conclude that the policy changes in [Executive Order 2] are minor or that [Executive Order 2] represents nothing more than a “renumbering” of policies that the court has already enjoined.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *