Which Federal Courts Have Blocked Trump's Travel Ban

Demonstrators gathered near the White House on March 11 to protest President Trump'due south travel ban on six Muslim countries. Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images

Demonstrators gathered near the White House on March 11 to protest President Trump's travel ban on 6 Muslim countries.

Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images

Updated at three:30 a.chiliad. ET Thursday

Hours after a federal guess in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining gild confronting President Trump's travel ban, U.Southward. District Courtroom Judge Theodore D. Chuang, in Maryland, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the 90-day ban against travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chuang's order denies the plaintiffs' request to block other parts of Trump'due south March six executive club, including the temporary ban on refugees.

Updated at 10:00 p.k. ET Midweek

U.South. District Court Judge Derrick G. Watson has issued a nationwide temporary restraining gild, preventing President Trump'south revised travel ban from taking consequence at midnight Wednesday. Trump'due south executive club would have temporarily halted the U.S. refugee programme and travel from vi Muslim-majority countries.

Trump, speaking at a rally in Nashville, Tenn., called the restraining order "unprecedented judicial overreach." He said, "The law and the Constitution give the president the power to suspend immigration — when he deems — or she, fortunately it will non exist Hillary, 'she' — when he or she deems information technology to be in the national interests of our country."

He said he would fight all the manner to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Department of Justice attorneys had argued that the ban was necessary to protect the nation's security and that it had been revised to address legal concerns. State attorneys general and immigrant rights activists argued the travel ban amounted to an unconstitutional Muslim ban.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores released this statement afterwards the ruling:

"The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the federal district court's ruling, which is flawed both in reasoning and in scope. The President'southward Executive Society falls squarely inside his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation's security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts."

Executive order was revised afterwards court defeat

Later on a federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the first travel ban, the revised version temporarily suspended entry past travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, not seven, as the original did. (Iraq was dropped from the listing.) And the new order fabricated articulate that information technology didn't apply to lawful permanent residents, besides known as green card holders, or to people holding valid visas issued earlier the ban's effective engagement.

It withal suspended the U.S. refugee plan for 120 days. It besides cutting the number of refugees the U.S. would take this yr past more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000.

Refugees from Syrian arab republic were no longer banned indefinitely. And the revised order dropped language that was intended to favor religious minorities, which Trump had signaled would apply to persecuted Christians from the Heart East.

Hawaii

Watson wrote that the state of Hawaii, challenging the executive order, has a strong likelihood of succeeding in pursuing the claims that the president's action would violate protections confronting religious bigotry and would hurt state businesses and universities, as well as the tourism industry.

The judge concluded, based on the historical context of the travel ban and public statements made by the president, that "a reasonable, objective observer ... would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to aversion a particular religion[.]"

Lawyers for the Justice Section had argued that Trump acted within his powers to set immigration policy and protect national security. They besides argued that Hawaii's claims of harm were speculative.

Simply attorneys for Hawaii offered the example of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque. His mother-in-police has applied for an immigrant visa from Syria. Elshikh said that she would be barred from the United States if the executive gild were implemented.

Along with Hawaii, courts in Maryland and Washington state take heard challenges to the new revised travel ban.

Washington

Federal District Gauge James L. Robart, who had blocked much of the White House's first travel ban terminal month in Seattle, is also treatment two cases challenging the new ban. One example involves 4 citizens or permanent residents who debate that access to visas for their family members would be disrupted. The other challenge comes from Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson — along with his counterparts from Minnesota, New York, California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Oregon.

"What we're looking at is what Donald Trump said when he was running for president," Ferguson told NPR's Morning Edition. "He said he wanted to create a Muslim ban." Ferguson argues that's "potent testify that the intent behind these executive orders was really less about national security and more most a Muslim ban."

Maryland

In a example before U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland, Department of Justice lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that the executive order "doesn't say anything about faith" and "doesn't send a religious message."

In that case, the plaintiffs are two refugee rights groups being helped past the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center. They maintain the gild is a Muslim ban, like Trump proposed on the entrada trail. Lee Gelernt of the ACLU tells NPR that the context of the order, including Trump'due south entrada statements, should be considered and makes the order's intent clear.

"The purpose of this was to ban Muslims and nosotros are hopeful that the gauge, similar other courts, will ... non plough a bullheaded middle to what's happening — that the administration just made certain tweaks to get around a court order merely still has the same policy purpose," Gelernt said.

National security

When the White House announced the second travel ban last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered some new support for the temporary freeze on refugee resettlement. "More than 300 people who came hither every bit refugees are under FBI investigation for potential terrorism-related activities," Sessions said. Just the Department of Justice declined to provide farther information almost the nature of those cases or which countries those refugees came from.

Refugee resettlement organizations debate that at that place'due south no legitimate reason for the ban. They say information technology would cause lasting harm to them and the people they assist.

"Information technology's not just about picking up refugees at the airport," said Marking Hetfield, CEO of HIAS, one of the 9 major resettlement agencies and a plaintiff in the Maryland instance. On a briefing call with reporters, Hetfield said that agencies like his offer a range of services, such as assistance locating and furnishing apartments, finding a job and getting kids signed up for school. If the refugee programme is suspended, Hetfield says, information technology will be "very difficult to get things going again."

Lawyers for DOJ said a travel ban gives fourth dimension to shore up vetting procedures for travelers from 6 countries that either are state sponsors of terrorism or have harbored terrorists.

Share this post