Trump’s order to ban Muslims into the US is
denied again
A
federal judge in Hawaii on March 15th 2017 issued a restraining order on
President Donald Trump's revised
travel ban, thereby temporarily blocking Trump’s executive order
from going into effect as planned.
In his
ruling, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson stated that the revised ban still
discriminates on the basis of nationality and prevents Hawaii residents from
receiving visits from relatives living in the six Muslim-majority countries the
executive order targets, according to
the Associated Press.
The
judge in his ruling on the plaintiff’s motion, said’ "According to the Plaintiffs,
the Executive order also results in 'their having to live in a country and in a
State where there is the perception that the Government has established a
disfavored religion,' which is contrary the United
States Constitution.
“On January 27, 2017, the
President of the United States issued an Executive Order titled; “Protecting
the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
“On March 6, 2017, the
President issued another Executive Order, identically titled, “Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
A court order was requested
from the United States District Court for the district of the State of
Hawaii granting a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of the
State of Hawaii and Ismaile lshikh, plaintiffs. The respondent was Donald Trump
et al (and others)
The
order granting the motion for a temporary restraining order was granted and it
read as such;
“This court revokes
Executive Order No. 13,769 upon taking effect.
“Executive Order 13, 14.
Like its predecessor, the Executive Order restricts the entry of foreign
nationals from specified countries and suspends entrants from the
United States refugee program for specified periods of time. Plaintiffs
State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh, Ph.D. seek a nation-wide temporary
restraining order that would prohibit the Federal Defendants from “enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of
the Executive Order before it takes effect.
“Upon evaluation
of the parties’ submissions, and following a hearing on March 15, 2017, the
Court concludes that, on the record before it, Plaintiffs have met their
burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits
of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if
the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities
and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion
is granted for the reasons detailed. unquote
Rejecting arguments from the government’s attorneys that President
Trump's revised travel ban was substantially different from the first one,
judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked the executive order from taking effect as
scheduled on Thursday, using the president's own words as evidence that the
order discriminates against Muslims.
The rulings in Hawaii late Wednesday and in
Maryland early Thursday were victories for civil liberties groups and advocates
for immigrants and refugees, who argued that a temporary ban on travel from six
predominantly Muslim countries violated the First Amendment. The Trump
administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States
from terrorism.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S. District Judge
Theodore Chuang who was appointed by then-president Barack Obama called Trump's
own statements about barring Muslims from entering the United States
"highly relevant." The second executive order removed a preference
for religious minorities from the affected countries, among other changes that
the Justice Department argued would address the legal concerns surrounding the
first ban, which was also blocked in court.
U.S. President Donald Trump
signed an executive order issuing a revised travel ban on March 6, 2017.
Justice Chuang said, "Despite
the changes, the history of public statements continues to provide a convincing
case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of
the long-envisioned Muslim ban,"
The initial ban sparked
chaos at U.S. airports and widespread criticism around the world when it was
signed in January. It was later blocked by a judge in Washington State, a
ruling that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Honolulu, U.S. District
Judge Derrick Watson criticized what he called the "illogic" of the
government's arguments and cited "significant and unrebutted evidence of
religious animus" behind the travel ban. He also noted that while courts
should not examine the "veiled psyche" and "secret motives"
of government decision-makers, "the remarkable facts at issue here require
no such impermissible inquiry."
Justice Watson also wrote,
referring to a statement Trump issued as a candidate, "For instance, there
is nothing 'veiled' about this press release: 'Donald J. Trump is calling for a
total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."'
Hours
before it was to take effect, President Donald Trump's revised travel ban was
put on hold on March 15th by a federal judge in Hawaii who
questioned whether or not the Trump administration was motivated by national
security concerns.
U.S. District Judge Derrick
Watson also said that Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order
blocked the flow of students and tourists to the state, and he concluded that
Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates the First Amendment of the Constitution that offers protections
against religious discrimination.
Justice Watson further
wrote, "The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The
notion that one can demonstrate animus (animosity) toward any group of people
only by targeting all of them at once is
illogic.
Trump called the ruling an example of
"unprecedented judicial overreach" and said his administration would
appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He bragged, "We're going to win. We're going
to keep our citizens safeas he addressed a rally in Nashville. "The danger
is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear."
The judge issued his 43-page ruling less than two
hours after hearing Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order to stop
the ban from being put into practice.
The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal
challenges across the country, asking judges in three more states to block the
executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.
Federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments as to
whether or not it should be allowed to take effect March 16th as scheduled. In all, more than half a dozen
states are trying to stop the ban.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores
said in a statement. “The case was argued in court by acting U.S. Solicitor
General Jeffrey Wall, who said the ban "doesn't say anything about
religion. It doesn't draw any religious distinctions."
That is hog wash. The vast majority of those
citizens in those six countries are Muslims. If the vast majority of the
citizens in those six countries were Christians,
would they be banned from entering the
United States? The answer to that question is no different than the asking if
pigs can fly.
Why didn’t Trump ban Muslims in Nigeria from
entering the United States. After nearly a decade of
violence, Nigeria’s government still does not have an effective strategy for
dismantling the terrorist group called Boko Haram that not only terrorizes Northern Nigeria
which is primarily Muslim but also terrorized Nigeria’s neighbouring countries?
Why didn’t Trump also ban Muslims from the
Philippines? In southern Philippines, since
January 2000 radical Islamist groups and Islamist separatist forces in
the Philippines have carried out over 40 major
bombings against civilians and civilian property, mostly in the southern
regions of the country around Mindanao, Basilan, Jolo and other nearby islands. Militant organizations like the Abu Sayyaf Group and
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front operate in the Sulu archipelago and
easternmost island of Mindanao.
Why didn’t Trump also ban Muslims from Saudi Arabia? Terrorism in Saudi Arabia has been attributed to Islamic extremists. Their targets included foreign
civilians—Westerners affiliated with its oil-based economy as well as Saudi Arabian civilians. Saudi
Arabia itself has been accused of funding terrorism in other countries; one of them is
Syria. Further, Saudi Arabia is also accused of funding other terrorist groups
in other countries. And let us not forget the nine terrorists who flew the
planes into the Twin Towers at the World Center and into the Pentagon and later
into the ground killing at least three thousand innocent victims. They were all
Muslims from Saudi Arabia.
Speaking on the evening of March 15th, at
a rally in Nashville, Tennessee, Trump called the ruling in Hawaii an example
of "unprecedented judicial overreach" and said his administration
would appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also called his new travel ban a
watered-down version of the first one, which he said he wished he could
implement.
He bragged, "We're going to win. We're going
to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for
my executive order is clear.’
While the Hawaii ruling temporarily blocks the travel
ban, a temporary ban on refugees and a cap on the number of refugees who can
enter the country, because Justice Chuang's ruling in Maryland applies only to
the travel ban. The Maryland ruling took the form of a preliminary injunction,
which will remain in effect indefinitely as the case is litigated. Justice Chuang
was also the first judge to stop the ban outside the ninth Circuit, which has a
liberal reputation. Unfortunately, Chuang wrote that the plaintiffs didn't
sufficiently develop their argument that a temporary ban on refugees
discriminates on the basis of religion. That was a slip up that was fortunately
covered by Justice Watson in Hawaii.
Omar Jadwat, who argued the case for the American
Civil Liberties Union in Maryland said, "Unless and until the president
realizes that this is a battle in which he's going to keep losing and decides
to do the right thing and abandon this course, for as long as he's on it we'll
keep litigating it and I think we're going to keep winning,"
Plaintiffs in the Maryland case also had sought to
stop a portion of the order that would reduce the number of refugees allowed to
enter the country this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000.
Still, the judge's order is hugely meaningful for
many plaintiffs, including a man in Texas whose same-sex fiance is seeking a
visa to enter the United States from Iran.
Unfortunately Trump wants to continue to separate
families who've already been separated for months and years. It is real-world
consequences and I am convinced that the majority of Americans are obviously
very glad to see that Judge Chuang recognized those and rejected the
government's frankly callous argument put out by Trumps indifferent followers.
If the administration appeals Justice Watson's
decision at the 9th Circuit level, the matter would likely be heard
by different judges from the three who ruled on the case last month. The panel
of judges who are assigned to such cases
rotate every month.
An appeal to the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, would not necessarily
be easier for the Trump administration, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at
the University of Richmond who is following the cases. The 4tth Circuit has a conservative reputation but has
become more moderate in recent years. It
will be interesting to see what their decision will be.
The hearings in Maryland and Hawaii were two of
three held on March 15th, in
federal courts around the country. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle,
who blocked the initial travel ban last month, did not immediately rule on a
request from an immigrant-rights group to block the revised version. In all,
more than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban.
In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that
the measure still discriminates against Muslims. Government attorneys argued
that the ban was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the
removal of an exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries.
I don’t know how they can do that considering
most of the people in those six
countries are Muslims.
This is an extremely important issue. Its outcome will
define the collective character of the people of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment