President Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a
federal judge in Hawaii just hours before it was set to take effect
after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the
basis of nationality.
Trump addressed the judge’s move during a rally in
Nashville, Tennessee calling it “unprecedented judicial overreach” and
vowed to fight.
"We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens
safe," Trump said. "The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for
my executive order is clear."
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick
Watson prevents the executive order from going into effect, at least for
now. Hawaii had requested a temporary restraining order.
"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," Watson wrote in his ruling.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL RULING.
In a statement released late Wednesday night the
Department of Justice said they strongly disagreed with the ruling and
called the move "flawed both in reasoning and 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," said DOJ Spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores.
The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal
challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block
the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim
countries.
More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the
ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard
arguments about whether it should be put into practice early Thursday.
Hawaii also argued to the court that the ban would
prevent residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six
countries covered by the order. The state says the ban would harm its
tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and
workers.
Senator Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, welcomed the
ruling and said “Judge Watson exemplifies the importance of an
independent judiciary.”
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called the travel ban "bad policy" and praised Attorney General Doug Chin for stopping the order.
In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the measure still discriminates against Muslims.
Government attorneys argued that the ban was revised
substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of an
exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries.
"It doesn't say anything about religion. It doesn't
draw any religious distinctions," Jeffrey Wall, who argued for the
Justice Department, said in court.
Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that
Trump's statements on the campaign trail and statements from his
advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is
to ban Muslims.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called the order "yet another victory."
"President Trump's second executive order is just a
Muslim Ban by another name - with the same unlawful and unconstitutional
goal of discriminating based on religion and national origin," he said
in a statement.
Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has previously
said the revised order was designed to have "the same basic policy
outcome" as the first.
The latest version of the ban details more of a
national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns
about violating the due-process rights of travelers, appyling only to
new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and
temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to
travelers who already have visas.
"Generally, courts defer on national security to the
government," said U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. "Do I need to
conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?"
In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to
Miller's statement and said the government had put out misleading and
contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific
countries would make the nation safer.
The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it's against
federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of
refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half,
from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban
takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with
nowhere else to go.
In the Hawaii case, the federal government said there
was no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii
officials offered only "generalized allegations" of harm.
Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General
challenged Hawaii's claim that the order violates due-process rights of
Ismail Elshikh as a U.S. citizen who wants his mother-in-law to visit
his family from Syria. He says courts have not extended due-process
rights outside of a spousal relationship.
Neal Katyal, a Washington, D.C., attorney
representing Hawaii, called the story of Elshiskh, an Egyptian immigrant
and naturalized U.S. citizen, "the story of America."
Wall told the judge that if he is inclined to issue
an injunction, it should be tailored specifically to Hawaii and not
nationwide.
In Washington state, U.S. District Judge James Robart
-- who halted the original ban last month -- heard arguments in a
lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is
making arguments similar to the ACLU's in the Maryland case.
Robart said he is most interested in two questions
presented by the group's challenge to the ban: whether the ban violates
federal immigration law, and whether the affected immigrants would be
"irreparably harmed" should the ban go into effect.
He spent much of Wednesday afternoon's hearing
grilling the lawyers about two seeming conflicting federal laws on
immigration -- one which gives the president the authority to keep "any
class of aliens" out of the country, and another that forbids the
government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes
to issuing immigrant visas.
Robart said he would issue a written order, but he
did not say when. He is also overseeing the challenge brought by
Washington state.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson argues that the new
order harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech
companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon, which
rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York
and Oregon have joined the claim.
Washington and Hawaii say the order also violates the
First Amendment, which bars the government from favoring or disfavoring
any religion. On that point, they say, the new ban is no different than
the old. The states' First Amendment claim has not been resolved.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the original ban but did not rule on the discrimination claim.