Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST NIGHT, A federal court in Hawaii halted Donald Trump’s revised executive order temporarily closing US borders to refugees and nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, dealing the president a humiliating defeat.
The ruling means a nationwide freeze on enforcement of a ban on entry by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also halts a 120-day suspension of the US refugee admissions program.
US District Judge Derrick Watson ruled that the state of Hawaii, in its legal challenge, had established a strong likelihood that the ban would cause “irreparable injury” were it to go ahead.
Trump quickly vowed to fight the “flawed” ruling all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, describing it as “unprecedented judicial overreach.”
“The law in the constitution gave the president the power to suspend immigration when he deems it to be in the national interest of our country,” he said at a speech in Nashville, Tennessee, adding:
We are going to win.
The Hawaii court said however it would not stay its decision in the event of an appeal, meaning the ban cannot go ahead as planned today regardless of any action the White House takes.
The court in Honolulu was the first to rule in a trio of legal challenges against the ban, which had been set to go into effect at midnight.
A federal court in Seattle later granted a separate emergency motion from Washington and Oregon states for a “14-day temporary restraining order,” also citing “irreparable harm.”
The arguments advanced against the ban by the two northwestern states are “likely to succeed,” court documents read.
The Seattle restraining order has no practical effect beyond what had already been set in motion in Hawaii.
Muslim ban?
The Trump administration’s wide-ranging initial travel restrictions imposed on 27 January were slapped down by the federal courts, after sparking a legal, political and logistical furore.
Trump signed a revised ban behind closed doors on 6 March with a reduced scope, exempting Iraqis and permanent US residents but maintaining the temporary ban on the other six countries and refugees.
The White House said those six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet US security requirements.
Judge Watson however rejected the White House claim that the order wasn’t a Muslim ban, ruling that it would not be a leap “to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam” given their Muslim populations ranging from 90.7% to 99.8%.
The judge made reference to several examples of Trump explicitly framing proposed action on immigration in religious language, including a March 2016 interview during which the then president-elect said: “I think Islam hates us.”
“Mr Trump was asked, ‘Is there a war between the West and radical Islam, or between the West and Islam itself?’ He replied: ‘It’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who,’” the judge added.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, Judge Theodore Chuang was expected to rule on a separate complaint filed by advocacy groups claiming that the amended order discriminates against Muslims.
“In his mind, the danger of Muslims and the danger of refugees is all combined danger,” Omar Jadwat, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said of the president.
The group said it was “pleased but not surprised” by the Hawaii ruling, while New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman hailed the decision as “yet another victory for the Constitution and the rule of law.”
The first version of Trump’s order triggered protests at home and abroad as well as chaos at US airports as people were detained upon arrival and either held for hours or sent back to where they came from.
Coast to coast
The Trump administration narrowed the restrictions in its revised order to try to ensure it would be unassailable.
“This order doesn’t draw any religious distinction at all,” said Jeffrey Wall, a government attorney.
Questioned about Trump’s tweets and statements during the presidential campaign in which he promised to enact a “Muslim ban,” Wall said: “There is a difference between a president and a candidate.”
But critics say the new order essentially remains a ban on Muslims coming to the United States, and therefore unconstitutional because it singles out followers of a certain religion for discrimination.
Since September 11, 2001, the worst attacks in the United States have been committed either by Americans or by people from countries not on the Trump travel ban list.
Critics also argue that it will have a very negative effect on schools, universities and the business world, mainly the high tech sector, which employs many highly skilled immigrants.
The state of Washington, joined by five other states, filed a complaint on Monday with the same Seattle judge who stayed Trump’s original travel ban in February.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’d say he’s livid! What I wouldn’t give to be a microwave in the White House this morning.
@Ciaran Ó Fallúin: Are you suggesting trump had small hands?
The most powerful man in the world, or the mouse in the White House….
What about the irreparable injury that Abdul Razak Ali Artan did to eleven American citizens at Ohio State University? Is the court in Hawaii really putting the feelings of immigrants ahead of it’s own citizens?
Then they say that the Irish judiciary is out of touch.
@Jason Culligan: where did Ali Artan travel from again?
@Jason Culligan: Complete hyperbole.
What about all the victims of 9/11, they must be wondering why Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the proscribed list.
@Jason Culligan: But what about 9/11? Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren’t on the list so please make sense of this for us, Jason.
@Jason Culligan: When I saw the announcement yesterday that red thumbs were going, I thought of you first. (along with Littleone and his pizzagate ramblings)
I wondered if the removal of red thumbs, which seem to have fuelled your opinions, pushing you further to the Pro-Trump, ignore-logic side that we’ve witnessed recently, would see you go even further unhinged not realising how detached from reality you’d become. Or, would the low green thumb count lead you to self reflection and reconsider the rabbit hole you’ve been falling down. Watching this space.
@Jason Culligan: America was founded by immigrants, terrorist outrages were carried out in the US by homegrown residents.
Cant stand this new comment format its like everyones comments are liked. After years with this app I’m deleting it, bye everyone!
@Sean McCarthy: Agree. The Journal has shot itself on the foot with this one. A story like this would normally attract many more comments in this timeframe
@Sean McCarthy: Inagree, personally will be spending more time on Reditt
What was wrong with the old comments section.
I hate the new comments section
I don’t like the new comments system.
I have a lot of hate in me and I need to be able to anonymously express it by red thumbing others’ posts.
Red thumb! Ah no I’m still using the app so I actually gave you a red thumb. God forbid an anonymous down vote on a comment you made on a news website would ruin your day. I think you’re the real whinger.
@Awkward Seal:
Be that as it may or be that not as it may be not.
I wasn’t calling anyone else a whinger and openly bemoan the restrictions the new system places on my freedom to express my whinginess (anonymously, of course).
Was it for this the wild geese flew?
My day is ruined, ruined utterly. A terrible ugliness is born.
Ultimately if it goes to the supreme court it will go through. Most terrorist attacks globally are carried out by Muslims so it’s hardly surprising that Muslim majority countries make up the list. And not all Muslim majority countries are included so it hardly singles out Islam. Bizarre ruling by the judge.
@Awkward Seal:
What people seem to forget is that it’s not just about terrorism.
These six countries were identified by the Obama administration as high risk zones for producing terrorism but also other crimes such as rape, anti-LGBT violence and theft. Countries like Germany and Sweden are experiencing this first hand.
The ban is on countries which produce individuals who are a higher risk to society as a whole. The fact that judges want to protect people who are proven to have a higher likelihood of sexual assault, anti-LGBT violence and terrorism under the guise of ‘irreparable injury’ is bizarre to say the least.
I suggest people check out the global terrorism index and this article from the guardian. The countries on Trump’s list aren’t an accident. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report&ved=0ahUKEwie3o-c1drSAhVTFMAKHSiBCKkQFghSMAU&usg=AFQjCNGG6wcWK_1DoF9PwnjBrzuhQwwxUQ&sig2=e-uWQUh_VoGzRsFA5kiBLw
@Jason Culligan: Saudia Arabia isn’t on that list. Of the major terrorist attack in 2001, it was mostly Saudi nationals that carried it out. Saudi Arabia also have dubious human rights allowable to women and LGBT. Any American president should protect its borders, but must be consistent in that pursuit.
How many Americans have died at the hands of refugeees? Half dozen in 30 years?
If America really wants to protect its citizens, the federal government and the legislature should take on the NRA.
@Alan Brogan: Jason puts out the same thing every time this story is up and then does the online equivalent of running away with his fingers in his ears going “LALALALALALAALALALALALALALALA”
He has no intention of accepting any counterpoint.
@Awkward Seal: an article mentioning two of the six is your justification? Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, should be on the list of it is what he says it is.
“What people seem to forget is that it’s not just about terrorism.”
It seems that the important people (judges) haven’t forgotten that it is about a Muslim Ban. Try to keep up.
@Jason Culligan: Why isn’t Saudi Arabia on the list?
Why not answer one time? Otherwise it’s easy to dismiss your arguments because of the massive inconsistency.
Or is it that you can’t read, like you accused me of?
Four of the six are in the top ten of the global terrorism index (1st, 4th, 6th and 8th) with Sudan in 13th. You’re right Nigeria, Pakistan, SA and the UAE should be on there too. Strange that they’re nearly all Islamic countries or at least have large Muslim populations. Obviously there are other factors. Perhaps they trust some countries more to combat terrorism than others. But I’m not denying that it’s hypocritical to ignore a country like SA who are arguably the worst offenders. My point was that it’s hard to argue that Trump’s list targets Muslims when the underlying reality is that extremist Islam is the primary cause of terrorism and thus it’s hardly surprising that Islamic countries feature so heavily on the list.
@Awkward Seal: that’s just it though, it looks like they’re picking countries whose citizens have done nothing in America so they can say in 4 years “look, no attacks from the banned countries”
Was Judge Derrick Watson appointed by Obama I wonder.
@Beachmaster: are you saying his decision was political and not motivated by upholding the law? If so, it will be struck down. We shall see.
@Alan Brogan: that is the case. 80% of 9th Circuit rulings that are challenged get overturned.
The irony of democracy all the same. It puts Trump in charge and at the same time prevents him from doing anything.
Too many people with so much to say will ensure that most of what he promised will never get done. Going to be a frustrating few years for him.
Now he knows how Obama felt while he sneered at him
@Tweed Cap: Putting someone in charge and allowing that person to do whatever they want is called a dictatorship.
The United has a constitutional and ethical responsibility to take in refugees. Ireland does not. Never forget that.
@Aaron:
Where in the US Constitution does it state that the US is obliged to take in refugees?
@Aaron: a constitutional responsibility? You are making that up
@cholly appleseed: You’re gonna look silly when Aaron provides a link to back it up.
Right Aaron?!
While it might not be in their constitution it is in treaties and agreements several times. So yes the US does have obligations legally.
I pray that Trump keeps digging this hole for himself.His hatred and arrogance is there for all the world to see.He definitely will get his comeuppance.
Every time I see or hear him I feel nauseous.
It’s so hard to comprehend that someone can harbour such hate in them.
@GerryFallon That is probably exactly what Judge Watson thinks of Trump also….
Where’s the thumbs down button ??
Trump has an easy way out of this .Just instruct his embassies not to issue visas to citizens of the the six countries.Sorted ,no visa no travel
Bernard> The embassies can then just ignore him. He doesn’t have the power to tell them what to do they are civil servants. He can’t do anything to the staff the same way he can’t tell the judges to do what he wants.
Wah wah wah I don’t like the changes to the free thing wah wah wah
How can it be “irreparable injury” when its only a 90 day ban?
Livestream here of House hearings on breaking up the 9th Circuit Court.
@Rosa Parks: Ask the family of the woman who died because she couldn’t travel to the US for her scheduled operation.
@Niamh Kenneally: That was Travel Ban 1.0. There are waivers in Travel Ban 2.0 including for existing visa holders and relatives can apply for waivers.
@Niamh Kenneally: She didn’t die. That story was exposed as a hoax.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13058/detroit-man-trumps-travel-ban-led-death-my-iraqi-james-barrett
Pesky judges!
have your say