This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/15/trump-travel-ban-blocked-restraining-order-hawaii

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Federal judge in Hawaii blocks revised Trump travel ban nationwide Hawaii judge halts Trump's new travel ban, setting stage for epic legal battle
(about 3 hours later)
A federal judge in Hawaii has blocked Donald Trump’s revised travel ban just hours before it was due to go into effect, marking another stinging blow to the administration. President Trump appears set on a collision course with federal judges, vowing to fight them to the end after a district court in Hawaii issued the second block in as many months on his proposed travel ban on visitors from majority-Muslim countries.
Judge Derrick Watson, a district judge in Honolulu, issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against the travel ban, which targets visa applicants from six Muslim majority countries and temporarily suspends the US refugee resettlement program. The dramatic clashes between Trump and the judiciary came just hours before the president’s revised executive order was due to come into effect at midnight. Had it stood, the travel ban would have put a complete stop to arrivals of refugees from anywhere in the world as well as newcomers from six predominantly Muslim countries.
The ruling comes a month after Trump’s first order was blocked by a court in Washington state, prompting the administration to issue a narrower order last week that attempted to navigate some of the complaints made in the first round of legal battles. But in a ruling that mirrored the restraining order issued by a Washington state judge just a month ago, Judge Derrick Watson of the federal district court in Honolulu delivered another stinging blow to the Trump administration’s contentious ambitions. Watson imposed a nationwide temporary stay on the travel ban that he found to be in violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution that prohibits discrimination against any religion.
But earlier in the day lawyers representing the state of Hawaii had argued the revised order was subject to the same constitutional complaints as the first attempted travel ban because it represented another veiled attack on Muslims. As a result of the Hawaii action, the midnight deadline for the implementation of the travel ban came and went without any visible impact at US airports. Though the ports remained calm, the foundations have been laid for what promises to be an epic legal struggle.
The claim was rejected by government lawyers who argued the order was issued on national security grounds and displayed no hostility or “animus” towards a particular religion, because the majority of Muslims in the world would not be affected by it. Firing the first salvos in that battle, a livid Trump accused the Hawaii judge of committing “unprecedented judicial overreach”. At a campaign-style rally in Nashville, Tennessee, on Wednesday nights, just a couple of hours after the ruling came down, he told supporters that he remained defiant.
Ultimately, Judge Watson ruled against that defense stating in a court order that the state of Hawaii, and a local imam who joined the legal challenge as a joint plaintiff, had “shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim” that the new order was unconstitutional. “We’re going to fight this terrible rule, we’re going to take this case as far as it will go, including the supreme court. We’re going to win,” he said.
“The illogic of the government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson continued in a forthright rebuke. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.” In an echo of his attack on the “so-called judge” who struck down the first travel ban, Trump sarcastically suggested that Watson might have acted for political reasons” and also floated the idea of breaking up the California-based ninth appeals circuit – a provocative remark given that the same ninth circuit is likely to adjudicate any appeal to the Hawaii ruling.
He added that court would not interpret the religious protections clause in the constitution in a “purely mathematical” manner. As he spoke, the president potentially dug himself deeper into a legal hole. Trump told the Nashville crowd that the revised travel ban was merely “a watered down version of the order that was blocked by another judge and should never have been blocked to start with”. He even suggested that he might “go back to the first one and go all the way”, indicating that he was minded to revert to the original executive order in a way that could further intensify the conflict with the courts.
Crucially, Judge Watson’s ruling also referenced inflammatory statements made by Trump throughout the campaign that singled out Muslims and the Islamic faith as a broad national security threat. The judge described these remarks as “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” driving the first and second order. The Nashville remarks could play into the hands of the teams of human rights lawyers who are lining up to oppose the travel ban. As such, the comments could be turned against him to provide further evidence that the president remains attached to the idea of a “Muslim ban” – a promise that he made repeatedly during the 2016 presidential campaign and which a succession of federal courts have now found to be in breach of the US constitution.
News of the ruling broke shortly before Trump addressed supporters at an evening rally in Nashville, Tennessee. The president was visibly irate as he admonished the decision, branding it “an unprecedented judicial overreach” and vowed to appeal the decision in court. Watson leaned heavily on the subject of intent in issuing his ruling. He referenced inflammatory statements made by Trump throughout the presidential race that singled out Muslims and the Islamic faith as a broad national security threat.
“You don’t think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you?” Trump said sarcastically. The comments were similar to those he made after his first travel ban was struck down by a federal judge in Washington whom he branded in a later tweet a “so-called judge”. The judge also referred to comments by close associates of the president’s after he had entered the White House. A day after the first executive order was issued, Watson noted, the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani told a television show that “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”
“This ruling makes us look weak, which we no longer are, by the way,” Trump added at the rally as the crowd booed. The judge described these remarks as “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” driving both the first and second order.
The president continued to concede that second order was a “watered down” version of the first ban and suggested, off the cuff, that he may “go back to the first one and go all the way” indicating he was willing to take the case to the supreme court, setting up the prospect of a protracted legal battle. Senior administration officials are now gearing up to appeal the Hawaii decision, the start of a process that could end at the door of the US supreme court. The Department of Justice said late on Wednesday that it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling, calling it “flawed both in reasoning and in scope”, and said that it would “continue to defend this executive order in the courts.”
The Department of Justice, the federal agency which will be leading any appeal to the restraining order on behalf of Trump, said late on Wednesday that it “strongly disagrees” with the Hawaii ruling, calling it “flawed both in reasoning and in scope. The president’s executive order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our nation’s security, and the department will continue to defend this executive order in the courts.” Opponents of the ban are also preparing themselves for what promises to be a bitter fight. Doug Chin, the attorney general of Hawaii who brought the legal challenge on behalf of the state, said the court decision showed that “whenever you have hostility towards a particular religion or nation of origin that’s certainly going to be something that is improper and a violation of the constitution”. He added that the confrontation between Trump and the courts showed “the strength of the American system of checks and balances”.
The attorney general of Hawaii, Doug Chin, who brought the legal challenge on behalf of the state, said in a press conference on Wednesday night that the ruling represented the US system of checks and balances in action. “Whenever you have hostility towards a particular religion or nation of origin, that’s certainly going to be improper and a violation of the constitution.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that has been involved in much of the litigation against the ban said it was prepared for a long court battle should it go that way. The ACLU’s Lee Gelernt commended the Hawaii judge for recognizing that “the revised order, like the first, continues to discriminate on the basis of religion and would have a real impact on thousands of people fleeing bad situations in their home countries”.
Asked to respond to Trump’s denunciation of the court opinion as making the country “look weak”, Chin said that on the contrary “what you are actually seeing is the strength of the American system. What you are seeing is the system working.”
The ruling came after a series of last minute federal court hearings around the country on Monday, where the government was forced to defend the new ban against similar claims.
Judges in Maryland and in Washington state are also set to rule in the coming days.
Lawyers involved in other cases across the country reacted with delight to the Hawaii ruling.
Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union said the federal judge had recognised that “the revised order, like the first, continues to discriminate on the basis of religion and would have a real impact on thousands of people fleeing bad situations in their home countries”.
Gelernt added that, should Trump appeal, “we are prepared for a long court battle if necessary”.
Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations responded to news of the Hawaii opinion with relief. “Time and time again we are proving that America is a nation of laws and that we have an independent judiciary to tell Donald Trump that he cannot play with the US constitution. We are reassured by these rulings that discrimination will not be tolerated no matter where it comes from, not even the president of the United States.”Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations responded to news of the Hawaii opinion with relief. “Time and time again we are proving that America is a nation of laws and that we have an independent judiciary to tell Donald Trump that he cannot play with the US constitution. We are reassured by these rulings that discrimination will not be tolerated no matter where it comes from, not even the president of the United States.”
The ruling was also greeted with delight by groups working with tens of thousands of refugees around the world who would have been caught by the travel ban had it been allowed to go ahead. Hans van de Weerd of the International Rescue Committee, which has one of the largest resettlement programs in the US, hailed the decision as a “victory for refugees, immigrants and visitors who would be directly affected by this travel ban, many of whom would have been heartlessly separated from family members.”
Amnesty International commended Judge Watson for focusing his ruling on Trump’s past comments on blocking Muslims from entering the country. “The public has not been fooled by this executive order and neither have the courts,” said Naureen Shah, the national security and human rights director of Amnesty’s US branch.
“You cannot describe bigotry in some other way and expect people to believe you are no longer discriminating when you have been so blatant about it all along.”