Trump vows to appeal travel ban ruling by federal judge in Hawaii

UPDATE: 3 p.m.

President Donald Trump says a federal judge in Hawaii demonstrated “unprecedented judicial overreach” when he ordered a temporary halt to Trump’s revised travel ban earlier today.

The president, speaking at a rally in Nashville, said his administration would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re going to win,” he said. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

After hearing arguments this morning in a Honolulu federal courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson granted the state’s motion for a nationwide temporary restraining order on the revised travel ban, saying Trump’s order violates the religious establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“The illogic of the government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

UPDATE: 1:45 p.m.

A federal court judge in Honolulu today granted Hawaii’s request to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban a day before it was schedule to go into effect.

In awarding a nationwide temporary restraining order, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson found that Trump’s order violates the religious establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Watson said that while the new order is more narrowly focused, he can’t ignore what Trump said on the campaign trail, including in a March 2016 interview in which he said, “I think Islam hates us,” and an October interview in which he said the Muslim ban has morphed into extreme vetting.

Watson issued his 43-page ruling early this afternoon after hearing arguments from both sides this morning. He said the state “preliminarily demonstrated” that its universities will suffer monetary damages and intangible harms and the state’s economy is likely to suffer a loss of revenue due to a decline in tourism because of the order.

Watson, who was appointed to the court by former President Barack Obama, said he intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the revised order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

But state attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

UPDATE: 1 p.m.

A federal judge in Hawaii has put President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on hold.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling today after hearing arguments on Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.

His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments today about whether it should be put into practice.

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

———

Associated Press

UPDATE: 11:05 a.m.

A federal court judge in Honolulu heard arguments this morning in Hawaii’s case to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban but did not make a ruling from the bench.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said he would issue a ruling on the proposed temporary restraining order before 6 p.m., which is midnight Eastern Time. The executive order is schedule to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the revised order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

But state attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu is hearing arguments this morning for and against the state of Hawaii’s request to temporarily block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The hearing on the proposed temporary restraining order is being held in Honolulu on the day before the ban is scheduled to go into effect.

State Attorney General Douglas Chin arrived at the Honolulu federal courtroom today after filing the challenge last week, claiming that the ban will harm Hawaii by highlighting the state’s dependence on international travelers, its ethnic diversity and its welcoming reputation as the Aloha State.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But federal government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also has a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

U.S. government attorneys argue that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

State attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

Hawaii’s lawsuit includes a Muslim plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque. He says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii.

It’s not clear when Watson will rule on the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.

Attorneys from the Washington, D.C., law firm Hawaii has hired will participate by phone. Justice Department attorneys are also phoning in for the hearing.

Fourteen state attorneys general and 58 technology companies have filed amicus briefs supporting Hawaii’s challenge. The attorneys general argue that the revised ban retains the unconstitutional components of the original order, including a broad ban on entry by nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries and a suspension of the refugee program.

Hawaii is one of several states where the travel ban is being challenged before its planned implementation Thursday.

In Maryland today, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang said he will issue a ruling in another lawsuit challenging the travel ban, but he did not promise that he would rule before the ban takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. He also said he may issue a narrow ruling that does not address the ban nationwide.

The lawsuit in Maryland was filed by the ACLU and other groups representing immigrants and refugees, as well as some individual plaintiffs. They argue banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. They also say it’s illegal for Trump to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half.

Government lawyers argued the ban was revised significantly to address legal concerns and no longer singles out Muslims.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart will hear arguments today in the lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The group says the new version of the travel ban discriminates against Muslims and raises the same legal issues as the original.

Robart also is overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state. He also issued the order halting nationwide implementation of the first ban. Among the plaintiffs in the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project case is a legal permanent resident who has been trying to bring her 16-year-old son from war-torn Syria.

———

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Back to top

Temporary restraining order by Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Scribd