A federal judge in Hawaii denied President Donald Trump’s new travel restriction on Wednesday evening, hours before the restriction was set to go live.
In a 43-page administering, US District Court Judge Derrick Watson deduced explicitly that the new official request has to be denied at this stage due to the religious discrimination.
Trump censured the decision during a rally Wednesday night in Nashville, presenting his announcement as “the bad, the sad news.”
“The order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first one,”.
“This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach,” said Trump, before swearing to take the issue to the Supreme Court if needed.
The functional impact of the decision – which applies across the country – is that travelers from six Muslim nations and refugees will have the capacity to go to the US.
Dissimilar to the past official request, the new one expelled Iraq from the list of prohibited nations, exempted those with green cards and visas and evacuated an arrangement that seemingly organizes certain religious minorities.
The new restriction was reported not long ago and was set to produce results Thursday. It would have prohibited individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refuges for 120 days.
According to Watson “The illogical of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed,”
He added, “Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries,”. Furthermore, “It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.” “It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.”
Watson wrote “When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms … and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ (request to block the new order),”.
The federal court has decided to oppose to Trumps’ travel ban.
According to judge Watson, changes are not enough and a travel ban will not last forever or change anything.
Watson wrote “Here, it is not the case that the Administration’s past conduct must forever taint any effort by it to address the security concerns of the nation,” he added. “Based upon the current record available, however, the Court cannot find the actions taken during the interval between revoked Executive Order No. 13,769 and the new Executive Order to be ‘genuine changes in constitutionally significant conditions.'”
Migration advocates applauded for the federal judge decision.
Now what legal step is Trump going to take?
