Judges in both jurisdictions say the new order is not much different from the old one.
Following a Temporary Restraining Order issued by a federal court in Hawaii, a federal judge in Greenbelt, MD, on Thursday issued injunction on parts of revised travel ban issued by President Donald Trump through an Executive Order.
Judge Theodore Chuang issued the order, after hearing the case filed by NCLU and other groups representing immigrants, refugees and their families.
Chuang said that Trump’s first Executive Order on the travel ban, issued on January 27, and the revised one, issued on March 6, 2017, are identical when it comes to discriminating against Muslims. The judge also put on the record some of the earlier speeches made by Trump to draw the point that the travel ban has been issued for political reasons.
The second Executive Order titled “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” suspends nationals of six countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, from “entry into the United States” for a period of 90 days, was to become effective from March 16, 2017. The Executive Order also suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.
Chuang pointed out that Trump clearly had clearly stated that he will bring in a travel ban on Muslims to stop their entry into the US.
“We’re having problems with Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country,” Mr. Trump said in March 2016. The same month he told CNN that “Islam hates us”.
The court also pointed out that in a conversation Trump had with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the president apparently told Giuliani that he wanted a Muslim ban, and sought guidance to show him “the right way to do it legally”. Giuliani made the conversation public during an interview.
Chuang said the president’s remarks and the issuing of travel ban hastily point to a plan to “approximate a Muslim ban without calling it one”.
It reads: “Direct statements of President Trump’s animus towards Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the First Executive Order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump’s promised Muslim ban. In particular, the direct statements by President Trump and Mayor Giuliani’s account of his conversations with President Trump reveal that the plan had been to bar the entry of nationals of predominantly Muslim countries deemed to constitute dangerous territory in order to approximate a Muslim ban without calling it one – precisely the form of the travel ban in the First Executive Order.”
Judge Chuang concluded the ruling saying: “The court will issue an injunction barring enforcement of section 2 (c) of the executive order.”
The section 2 (C) of Trump’s executive order bans people from six nations – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days.
The court also ordered a preliminary injunction of travel ban all across the US, and declined to stay the ruling should an emergency appeal be filed.
Earlier on Wednesday, Hawaii Federal District Court Judge Derrick Watson issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the revised travel ban, becoming the first state to block the executive order.
The restraining order was issued in a case filed by Egyptian American Ismail Elshikh, an imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii.
Elshikh filed a Second Amended Complaint and Motion for a TRO citing that the new Executive Order suffers from the “same infirmities as those provisions of Executive Order.”
After closely examining both the arguments, the court granted order:
The order passed by Watson says:
The 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. No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). 43 The Court declines to stay this ruling or hold it in abeyance should an emergency appeal of this order be filed.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), 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.
Another judgment on the travel ban is awaited from the Judge in Washington state who on Wednesday heard arguments on the legal challenges. The ruling is expected to come on Thursday.