The first version of the ban sparked protests around numerous nation’s airports, with demonstrators describing it as a “Muslim ban” based on Trump’s campaign promise to “ban all Muslims” from the United States.
Trump blasted the “terrible ruling” as a “unprecedented judicial overreach” that “make us look weak”.
The new order bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, but Iraqis are no longer on the list. When the Trump administration challenged the decision, an appeals court refused to reinstate the ban.
The ruling, issued Wednesday, also stopped the government’s attempt to cap refugee resettlement and the compiling of a series of government studies and reports on how refugees and foreign visitors to the USA are vetted. The temporary order issued in Hawaii, by the district judge Derrick Watson, covers two complete sections of the order.
The Justice Department also argued that the Hawaii ruling shouldn’t block Trump’s order that security officials review whether other countries are providing enough information to ensure would-be immigrants aren’t a security threat.
The White House said the other six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet United States security requirements. “First, the State alleges the impacts that the Executive order will have on the University of Hawaii system, both financial and intangible”, Watson wrote in his ruling.
“President Trump’s Muslim ban has fared miserably in the courts, and for good reason – it violates fundamental provisions of our Constitution”, ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat said in a statement.
The department goes on to request that if Watson meant for his decision to apply to the ban on refugees, the court should not apply the temporary restraining order to a cap of 50,000 refugees outlined in the executive order.
Trump billed thefirst executive order as an anti-terrorism measure and signed it on January 27, just one week after he took office.
Three strikes and you’re out?
On 15 March, Trump was speaking at a rally in Nashville. They also pointed to a section of the original order that gave immigration preference to religious minorities, including Christians.
At that point, the government’s legal options were to ask for a hearing by a larger panel of judges or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. “We’re going to win”.
The duration of the suspension was meant to be used by relevant federal agencies – the department of homeland security, justice department and the state department to put in place a process of “extreme vetting” to prevent terrorists – whom he has called “bad dudes” – from entering the United States.
The man filed a federal lawsuit in Madison asking a judge to block the ban from applying to his family so they could continue the visa process.
The speed and enthusiasm with which two federal courts halted President Trump’s latest travel executive order might suggest that the revised policy is as obviously problematic as the last, which was a sloppy rush job that the government poorly defended in court.
Rights groups and states contesting the ban welcomed the rulings. While the government could seek to take the case directly to the Supreme Court, it would likely have to go first to both the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which includes Hawaii – and the 4th Circuit, which covers Maryland.