Summary
- A federal district court judge in Hawaii has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Donald Trump’s second travel ban, forcing a nationwide halt to the administration’s flagship policy hours before it was due to come into effect.
What the judge said
- Judge Derrick Watson said there was:
significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the executive order and its related predecessor … The illogic of the government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.
- The judge’s ruling cited several comments made by Trump himself, as well as senior advisers Stephen Miller and Rudy Giuliani, indicating that the motivation for the executive order was to ban Muslims:
These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the executive order, and, in many cases, made by the executive himself, betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose.
Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the court for purposes of the instant motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the executive order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.
What Trump said
- Trump, speaking at a campaign rally in Nashville, denounced the ruling, calling it
an unprecedented judicial overreach.
- The president – in words that could hinder his cause – called the revised travel ban a “watered-down version” of his original order, and told his audience:
We’re going to fight this terrible ruling. We’re going to take this as far as we need to, right up to the supreme court …
I think we ought to go back to the first one [executive order] and go all the way … We’re gonna win it, we’re gonna win it.
What happens next?
- The revised travel ban, which was due to come into effect at midnight ET, cannot be implemented.
- The court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) – which means a further hearing must take place to determine whether it should be extended. The judge indicated this should happen speedily. Trump’s comments suggest the justice department will appeal against the ruling.
Read more
Updated
As Donald Trump’s second attempt at introducing a controversial Muslim travel ban neared its scheduled – and now interrupted – start, few would have been hoping for its success as anxiously as his senior adviser Stephen Miller.
Miller was the policy’s 31-year-old architect and was at the center of the troubled first attempt to introduce a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries in late January.
Miller was removed from the process of writing the revised travel ban because of the legal challenges that mired the initial policy, and officials at the agencies tasked with implementing the order had made a more concerted effort to avoid such legal problems this time.
But an interview Miller gave to Fox News late in January was used by legal opponents to prove that the underpinnings were one and the same, and was even cited in a temporary restraining order (TRO) that a federal judge in Hawaii placed on the revised travel ban on Wednesday night.
“Fundamentally,” Miller said, “you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court, and those will be addressed.
“But, in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren says the latest block to the administration’s travel ban(s) means it’s “0 for 2 vs the constitution”:
Turns out, an illegal Muslim ban by another name is still an illegal Muslim ban. So the courts just blocked @realDonaldTrump's second one.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 16, 2017
.@realDonaldTrump, your Muslim ban is now 0 for 2 vs the Constitution. Stop fighting the rule of law and start fighting for all Americans.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 16, 2017
We’ve rounded up some of the key quotes from the Hawaiian district court ruling, including this stinging rebuke to the government argument that the order barring travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was not a Muslim ban:
The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.
One of the most striking elements of the Hawaiian court ruling is that it uses Trump’s own words to agree with arguments that the travel ban is, in effect and motivation, a Muslim ban.
As Austin Sarat, professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, writes for the Guardian today:
Judge Watson insisted on taking literally Trump’s electioneering statement: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In addition, he offered a long list of statements to that same effect made by Trump and his spokespeople.
He called particular attention to the statement of Rudy Giuliani when he went on television to explain how the initial executive order came to be. The judge reminded the readers of his opinion of what Giuliani said: “When [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.’”
The judge tellingly referred to what he referred to as “plainly-worded statements made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the executive order, and, in many cases, made by the executive himself” that, Judge Watson insisted, “betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose” …
What Judge Watson wants us to understand, whether we favor or oppose the travel ban, is that when words lose their meaning and their capacity to bind those who use them, neither democracy nor the rule of law can long survive.
In an unusual intervention, five judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals have issued a statement to say they disagree with three colleagues who last month ruled in favour of halting the original travel ban.
The Trump administration abandoned its legal defence of that original executive order when it came up with the revised version – but after today’s ruling in Hawaii, any appeal against that decision will go back to the ninth circuit.
After the February ruling, some judges had called for a rehearing of the case by 11 judges rather than the original three. On Wednesday the call was denied. But five judges – Bybee, Kozinski, Callahan, Bea, and Ikuta – dissented, saying the decision to halt the executive order was wrong.
Their dissent has no bearing on the implementation – or otherwise – of the revised travel ban. But it’s not hard to see that it might be used in support of any appeal against the new restraining order.
The full filing, including the five judges’ dissenting opinion, is here (pdf). Here’s a key section:
The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration”.
But there is also a rebuke from Bybee for comments made – one can only presume by Trump – against the three judges who made the original ruling, and for the circumstances in which the case has played out:
The panel addressed the government’s request for a stay under the worst conditions imaginable, including extraordinarily compressed briefing and argument schedules and the most intense public scrutiny of our court that I can remember.
Even as I dissent from our decision not to vacate the panel’s flawed opinion, I have the greatest respect for my colleagues. The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse – particularly when they came from the parties.
It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.
While not fulminating about the judge’s ruling on the travel ban, Donald Trump also spent his Wednesday evening talking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News about Twitter and that wire-tap claim against Obama. Ed Pilkington reports:
Earlier this month Trump sparked a firestorm by claiming on Twitter, without producing any evidence, that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.
Carlson pressed Trump on his relaxed approach to accuracy on social media. “Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? Don’t you devalue your words when you can’t provide evidence?” the Fox News host asked.
To which the president of the United States replied, slightly indignantly, that there had been evidence: he had read about wiretapping in the New York Times – “the failing New York Times” he corrected himself quickly, realizing he had just committed a faux pas by crediting one of his “dishonest media” enemies as a reliable source.
It was a dramatically different scene at JFK international airport on Wednesday compared with what unfolded more than six weeks ago when the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban went into effect.
In JFK’s terminal four, the environment was calm and quite ordinary tonight. There were no spontaneous protest attracting thousands and no ad-hoc legal aid services popping up at the terminal’s eateries.
The New York Immigration Coalition and the No Ban JFK Coalition both told the Guardian that planned actions in response to the renewed ban were cancelled after the federal court decision halting the ban was announced.
Instead, a multi-ethnic and pan-national crowd of families holding balloons and flowers waited for loved ones to disembark from planes from Dubai, Kuwait, Mexico City, Bogota and Montego Bay. In quotidian fashion, travelers shuffled in and out for coffee, restrooms and ground travel into New York’s five boroughs and beyond.
What happens next?
The revised travel ban, which was due to come into effect at midnight ET – just under one hour from now – cannot be implemented.
The ruling, issued in Hawaii, applies nationwide.
It states:
Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court.
The court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) – which means a further hearing must take place to determine whether it should be extended. The judge indicated this should happen speedily:
The Court intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether this Temporary Restraining Order should be extended. The parties shall submit a stipulated briefing and hearing schedule for the Court’s approval forthwith.
The ruling from Hawaiian district judge Derrick Watson also cast doubt on government claims that the ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was necessary for national security reasons:
When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO [temporary restraining order].
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the largest Muslim civil rights group in the US, has welcomed the legal block.
Cair’s national executive director Nihad Awad said:
We welcome this order as confirmation of the strength of our nation’s system of checks and balances that prevents one branch of government from violating the constitution or the rights of any vulnerable group.
We urge the Trump administration to scrap this Muslim ban entirely because it disrespects both the constitution and America’s longstanding tradition of religious freedom and inclusion.
You can read the full ruling from the federal district court in Hawaii here (pdf).
Here is a key section in which the judge concludes there is nothing “secret about the executive’s motive”:
The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts”.
The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.
For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order:
Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “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.’”
News of the court 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.
“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”.
“This ruling makes us look weak, which we no longer are, by the way,” Trump added at the rally as the crowd booed.
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.
Hawaii was the first ruling of the day, but more challenges to the travel ban were heard on Wednesday, with rulings from those hearings still to come.
Maryland
American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, on behalf of refugee resettlement agencies, argued for a restraining order on the revised travel ban in front of district judge Theodore Chuang.
Washington state
A group of plaintiffs in Seattle who are applying for immigrant visas asked for the travel ban to be halted, backed by Washington state, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon.
Their argument was heard by district judge James Robart – the judge who first temporarily suspended the first ban.
When will we get the rulings?
It’s not yet clear. Both Robart and Chuang said they would issue written rulings in their cases, but did not say when.
Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, said he had no option but to challenge the US president’s latest travel ban because it “takes us back half a century”:
In a statement, the US justice department says it “strongly disagrees” with the court ruling that has temporarily blocked the travel ban.
Here’s the full statement:
The department of justice strongly disagrees with the federal district court’s ruling, which is 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.
Updated
Trump: 'I want people who love our country'
In an interview recorded before news broke of the block on the travel ban, Trump spoke to Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight show.
Carlson asked him:
Do you think it’s possible to move a large Muslim population into the West and successfully integrate them into Western culture? Have you seen that anywhere?
Here’s Trump’s response:
Well, it’s not easy. And it certainly hasn’t been easy. You look at Germany, you know, I took a lot of heat over Sweden [when he cited a non-existent terror attack] and then the next day they had this massive riot and now nobody talks about it*. It certainly has not proven to be easy.
Could it be done in the US, Carlson asked Trump.
Well, they’ve been trying, and we’ll let you know. The assimilation has been very, very hard. It’s been a very, very difficult process. I want this country to be safe. I want this country to be great. And it’s called make America great again. That’s where I got elected. I want people that love our country. And many Muslims do. Many, many Muslims do. But it has been a hard process.
If you look at Germany, what’s happened. If you look at Sweden, what’s happened. If you look at Brussels, take a look at Brussels, I mean look what’s going on. Take a look at so many other places. It has been a very hard process. We are going to try very, very hard to make it work.
[* You can read about the Rinkeby riot here in the Guardian, here in the New York Times, here in the Washington Post, for starters.]
Ruling: purpose of ban is to 'suspend entry of Muslims'
It’s possible that Trump’s argument that the revised travel ban is a “watered-down version” of the original could hurt, not help, his case, given the Hawaii ruling raised this very issue in its decision to halt the implementation of travel ban no 2.
The ruling cites comments put forward by the plaintiffs made by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, who made similar “watered-down” arguments:
On February 21, Senior Advisor to the President, Stephen Miller, told Fox News that the new travel ban would have the same effect as the old one. He said: “Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.”
The ruling goes on, citing the Miller comments and others made by Trump and Rudy Giuliani:
These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose.
Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.
Liz Barney was in the courtroom in Honolulu earlier today. She has this dispatch from the chamber:
In the packed Hawaii federal courtroom on Wednesday morning, Judge Derrick Watson had given no indication of how he would rule. Lawyer Colleen Sinzdak, representing the state of Hawaii, had argued the plaintiffs had “ample evidence” the order was religiously motivated. She cited Trump’s campaign call to prevent Muslim immigration, which has not been removed from his campaign website.
Watson propped his chin on folded hands as he expressed uncertainty over whether the court should “close our eyes to historical context”, pointing out that Judge Leonie Brinkema had used similar information to inform her decision in Virginia in February.
His decision blocking the ruling ultimately cited that context – statements from Trump’s campaign – to find that the order was likely unconstitutional.
Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for the office of the solicitor general, argued that Judge Brinkema “did look beyond the law, but we now have before us a very different law”.
He argued there was no substantiated proof the ban would cause any immediate harm to citizens of Hawaii, but rather the opposite. “These claims are not just wrong, but dangerous” he said, asserting the complaint set a dangerous precedent that could restrict the president’s authority to act on intelligence and protect citizens from potential threats.
At his Nashville rally, Trump called the revised travel ban a “watered-down version” of his original executive order – which he said the government should revert to, despite the court now blocking both orders.
How are the two orders different?
The new order formally cancels the first, and tries to resolve legal problems raised by it. It narrows the countries down to six – Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Somalia and Libya (removing Iraq from the list).
It explicitly exempts people with valid visas and green cards from the order, and says that Syrian refugees – banned indefinitely under the original order – will not be treated differently than other refugees.
Unlike the original, the order also makes clear that US agencies will review case-by-case exceptions.
The new order removes a provision that gave priority to religious minorities in their home countries – a section that opponents linked to the president’s stated preference for Christian refugees – but also defends it, saying: “That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion.”
Today’s 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 shortly.
But the Hawaii decision sets up a protracted legal battle for the Trump administration, which will likely appeal the decision.
Trump had indicated after his last ban was blocked by a judge in Washington state that he was willing to take the case to the supreme court. That ruling was upheld in a unanimous ruling by a federal appeals court.
Ultimately, however, he issued the revised order to replace the first ban in the hope it would make it through the courts.
Trump continues:
The best way to keep foreign terrorists – or as some would say, radical Islamic terrorists – the best way to stop them is to keep them from entering our country in the first place.
Trump says the revised travel ban was a “watered-down” version of the original
I think we ought to go back to the first one [executive order] and go all the way …
We’re gonna win it, we’re gonna win it.
Trump says the president has the right to determine whether people believed to be detrimental to the US should be blocked from entry “as he shall deem necessary”.
If he thinks there’s danger out there, he or she, whoever is president, can say: Not now, folks … we’ve got enough problems.
We’re talking about the safety of our nation, the safety and security of our people.
Trump asks the crowd sarcastically (apparently sarcastically, at least):
You don’t think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you, no?
This makes us look weak … Just look at our borders.
We’re going to fight this terrible ruling. We’re going to take this as far as we need to, right up to the supreme court.
We’re going to win. We’re going to keep our people safe.
Trump slams 'unprecedented judicial overreach'
“I issued an executive order,” Trump starts.
But let me give you the bad news. We don’t like bad news … I’ll turn it into good.
But let me give you the bad, the sad news.
Moments ago I learned that a district judge in Hawaii, part of the much overturned ninth circuit court – and I have to be nice, otherwise I’ll be criticised for speaking poorly about our courts [he indicates the media here] … I would never want to do that.
A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries.
The order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and that should never have been blocked to start with …
This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach.
“Aren’t our borders getting extremely strong?” Trump asks the Nashville rally audience, to cheers. “Very strong.”
He talks about the wall along the Mexico border – no mention of the travel ban yet.
Trump: "We have done I think maybe more than any president has done in the first 50 days." And just wait till you see what's to come.
— David Smith (@SmithInAmerica) March 16, 2017
Trump has begun speaking in Nashville.
Turns out he doesn’t like the media much.
If he comments on the travel ban, I’ll have it here.
Donald Trump has arrived in Nashville, where he’s shortly to address a campaign rally (which is, in fact, a campaign rally for 2020 re-election).
I’ll have live coverage here as the president is expected to address the block to his rewritten travel ban.
In Nashville, Tennessee! Lets MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! pic.twitter.com/m5UR4vv6UH
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 16, 2017
Travel ban halted: reactions
Margaret Huang, executive director Amnesty International USA, says:
As long as this hateful policy remains, it will continue to be fought in courts while thousands of people and families are trapped in uncertainty. Congress can end this by passing legislation that effectively nullifies the ban.
This decision against the ban tells us what we already know: this is anti-Muslim bigotry falsely packaged as security. Hatred won’t make us safe. The ban must be repealed now.
Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates (which filed an amicus brief in the Hawaii v Trump case), says:
The country and the courts have spoken once again: the Muslim ban is wrong and is unconstitutional. President Trump should rescind this executive order immediately and start working on the real challenges facing this country.
The Muslim ban has encouraged discrimination against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim. People with no connection to the banned countries are being stopped and searched at airports and having their trusted traveler statuses revoked just for being a Muslim, looking like a Muslim, or having a name that sounds Muslim. These policies and practices are part of a concerted effort by the Trump administration to demonize and marginalize Muslim, Latino and other immigrant communities.
We applaud this ruling and will continue to work to ensure this temporary halt is permanent and the executive order is struck down.
Pool reporters with White House press secretary Sean Spicer have asked him for a response to the Hawaiian order blocking the travel ban.
Spicer said there is no response at this point, with the White House itself hearing about the temporary restraining order only as the news was breaking.
The judge’s ruling cites several comments made by Trump – put forward by the state of Hawaii as evidence that the travel ban is, despite government denials, a Muslim ban:
In an interview on January 25, 2017, Mr. Trump discussed his plans to implement “extreme vetting” of people seeking entry into the United States. He remarked: “[N]o, it’s not the Muslim ban. But it’s countries that have tremendous terror. . . . [I]t’s countries that people are going to come in and cause us tremendous problems.” …
When signing the first Executive Order [No. 13,769], President Trump read the title, looked up, and said: “We all know what that means.” President Trump said he was “establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America,” and that: “We don’t want them here.”
Comments made by Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani have also come back into play. The court ruling includes this admission, cited by the plaintiffs as proof the ban is intended to target Muslims:
The day after signing the first Executive Order [No. 13,769], President Trump’s advisor, Rudolph Giuliani, explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “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.’”
Hawaiian judge Derrick Watson concludes in his ruling that the revised ban is in fact not all that different to the original one:
Based upon the current record available, however, the Court cannot find the actions taken during the interval between revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 and the new Executive Order to be ‘genuine changes in constitutionally significant conditions’.
The Hawaiian judge behind the TRO was appointed by President Obama, AP reports. Expect to hear more about that from his White House successor:
The judge in Hawaii who put President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on hold was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.
US district judge Derrick Kahala Watson got his nod in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in US history.
He received his law degree from Harvard law school in 1991.
His 43-page decision Wednesday was released less than two hours after the hearing ended.
President Trump is due to be speaking at a rally in Nashville shortly. Will he address the latest stumble for his flagship executive order? We’ll cover it here.
In the meantime, this is not quite the snap Twitter response we were anticipating:
Thank you Andrew Jackson! #POTUS7 #USA🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/GToWsWXiNv
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2017
In Washington state, which led the legal charge against the original travel ban and which continues to challenge the revised order, attorney general Bob Ferguson has hailed news from Hawaii:
Fantastic news. It’s very exciting.
At this point it’s a team effort: multiple lawsuits and multiple states.
The judge’s ruling makes specific reference to Donald Trump’s own comments, and their role in undermining the justice department claim that the travel ban is not a Muslim ban:
Judge cites Trump's own comments in blocking his new immigration order, saying they "betray the Executive Order's stated secular purpose" pic.twitter.com/IDv3Oe1KO7
— BNO News (@BNONews) March 15, 2017
Hawaii ruling: key quotes
Here’s a key part of the Hawaii ruling (Dr Elshikh is the Hawaiian citizen, a Muslim, named along with the state as a plaintiff because of the alleged effects of the travel ban on himself and his family).
The ruling states:
Because a reasonable, objective observer – enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance – would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose, the Court finds that Plaintiffs, and Dr. Elshikh in particular, are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.
And a stinging rebuke to the government:
The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.
The block issued against the revised travel ban is a temporary restraining order (TRO), halting the implementation of the ban nationwide, but not permanently.
We can expect a push back from the justice department, which had argued that the revised executive order had tackled all the legal problems that led to the blocking (and then withdrawal) of the original travel ban.
And of course we’ll look out for Trump tweets.
Republican House speaker Paul Ryan has said he has “no doubt” the travel ban order will be upheld.
Hawaii’s US district judge Derrick Watson was one of several judges hearing arguments over the ban in the final hours before its expected implementation.
He had said earlier on Wednesday afternoon, after hearing oral arguments, that he would issue a written ruling before 6pm Hawaii time. It’s currently 1pm in Hawaii.
Hawaii was the first state to challenge the second version of Trump’s travel ban, after the first was halted by court order.
The state argued that the ban was unconstitutional, and that it would suffer damage to its local economy and to various educational and religious institutions. It also argued that some Hawaiians would be prevented from reuniting with family members swept up in the ban.
Read more on the background here:
Hawaii judge blocks travel ban
A federal judge in Hawaii has issued a nationwide temporary block to the revised travel ban that was due to be implemented from midnight ET – just five hours from now.
The new executive order – issued after the original attempt to bar travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries was halted by the courts – removed Iraq from the banned list but continued to bar for 90 days visitors from six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
We’ll have unfolding detail and reaction on this live blog.
