Courts Block Trump’s Newest Travel Ban

In doing so, the judges were pretending to read President Trump’s mind.

A federal judge on Sunday rejected the US government’s request to clarify his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The original ban was blocked by a federal court, and an appeals court stood behind the lower court’s decision. We’re going to fight this awful decision all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump’s revised ban bars new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim countries: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen.

Even using that deferential standard, critics could argue that the national security justifications the Trump administration has provided for its order are too thin; as a policy matter, the order lacks the support of logic or evidence, despite the Trump administration’s late efforts to locate some.

“The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear”, he told supporters Wednesday at a Tennessee rally.

The new executive order was reissued with the intention of overcoming the legal concerns.

The White House said the six countries were targeted because their screening and information capabilities could not meet USA security requirements.

“It doesn’t draw any religious distinctions”, lawyer Jeffrey Wall said, arguing for the Justice Department in Maryland.

Questioned about Trump’s tweets and statements during the campaign in which he promised to enact a “Muslim ban”, Wall said: “There is a difference between a president and a candidate”.

But statements from Trump and his team, especially when combined with his continued inclusion of a 90-day ban on foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, have proved – at least for now – insurmountable in court.

A federal judge in Hawaii blocked the revised travel ban, citing comments made by Miller, Rudy Giuliani and Trump, that “betray the Executive Order’s stated secular objective”.

But Chuang, who sits in Greenbelt, and a federal judge in Hawaii looked to the president’s past statements and concluded that the ban still discriminated on the grounds of religion.

Three strikes and you’re out?

“They will take it because of its national importance”, Spakovsky said.

Hans von Spakovsky, from the Washington D.C. -based Heritage Foundation, said the Department of Justice might want to time their appeals to reach the Supreme Court after Gorsuch is confirmed. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe”, the president said. He described the court rulings as “flawed”. The department is of the opinion that the ruling should not apply to the immigrants of the war-stricken countries in the Middle East.

Rights groups and states contesting the ban welcomed the rulings.

If one were to be pursued in that case, it would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – the same tribunal that had blocked the first version of the executive order last month.

“A leopard can not change his spots by taking a bath”, Cornell Law Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr said.

Watson’s order capped off a whirlwind day of court hearings around the country, with plaintiffs in both Maryland and Washington State also seeking to block the ban before it was set to take effect Thursday.