A person enters the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., on Wednesday.
It came hours before the ban was to have taken effect. “The Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts”, it said a statement. The revised travel ban will bar entry of citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days.
This ban is awful, and the rulings halting it are great, but this is all emblematic of one of Trump’s biggest shortcomings as president: He just doesn’t seem to understand that his words matter.
While the ban does not mention Muslims, the courts have accepted arguments that Trump’s statements while he was running for president past year – that he would open his White House term with a ban on Muslim arrivals – effectively defined his approach. The new version exempted key groups, like green card and visa holders, and dropped the section that would have given Christians special treatment.
On Thursday, however, the notion that these two orders are merely rewording of one another was cast into doubt by none other than U.S. District Judge James Robart, the same man who blocked Trump’s original executive order last month. “The record before this Court is unique”, said Watson in his opinion.
The president had already vowed to challenge the Hawaii ruling, which he branded an “unprecedented judicial overreach” at a rally shortly after the order was handed down on Wednesday evening. He imposed a temporary restraining order, a short-term measure meant to prevent irreparable harm while court proceedings move forward.
If the government’s request is granted, the Hawaii ruling would then largely match a Maryland federal court order against the travel ban that was issued on Thursday by U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang.
The indicated plan by the government to appeal the Maryland case to the Fourth Circuit Court would not have an impact on the Seattle cases, because that Circuit Court does not make decisions binding on the Seattle court.
The Government need not fear. Aside from having to rewrite the speech he had planned, Trump needed consoling after yet another legal setback for an administration that was supposed to win so much the American people would be exhausted of all that success. The filing for shifts the dispute to the more-conservative Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rather than the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit that blocked Trump’s original ban. “It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor”.
The Justice Department called the Hawaii ruling “flawed both in reasoning and in scope”. The new order prompted the man to renew his request last week.
So why does President Donald Trump keep running into legal trouble with his efforts to freeze immigration by refugees and citizens of some predominantly Muslim nations?
He argues that the new ban is anti-Muslim and violates his rights to freedom of religion and due process.
Chuang writes that, as the Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized, courts should generally defer to the executive branch on national security judgments.
“[The new ban] doesn’t say anything about religion”.
Mr. Trump replied: “The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into a [n] extreme vetting from certain areas of the world”.