Judge Blocks Third Version Of Trump’s Travel Ban

Casualties Mount In Trump's First Eight Months
US President Donald Trump      SAUL LOEB / AFP


A United States judge on Tuesday barred the White House from implementing yet another version of Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on immigration, hours before it was to go into full effect.

The decision by Hawaii federal judge Derrick Watson — which the White House signaled it would appeal — marks the latest blow to Trump’s long-running efforts to restrict entry of travelers from targeted countries into the United States.

Watson said the third rendition of the travel ban — covering people from six mainly Muslim countries, as well as North Korea and some officials from Venezuela — could not be justified under law.

In his decision Watson wrote the ban “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specific countries would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

The ruling meant the Trump administration will again be forced to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether his immigration orders are legal.

The newest order was announced last month to replace an expiring 90-day temporary ban on travelers from the Muslim-majority nations of Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Somalia and Libya.

The September decree removed Sudan from the list, but added Chad and North Korea for full bans and Venezuela for a ban limited to certain classes of officials.

The White House justified the measure by citing the protection of US national security — but critics said it appeared virtually the same as the original order of January 27.

Courts shot that version down saying it targeted Muslims, violating the US constitutional protections for religious freedom.

A second version was only slightly adjusted and was quickly tied up in similar legal wrangling.

In June the Supreme Court accepted to review the case but let the 90-day ban go mostly into effect in the meantime.

When the ban expired the court decided there was nothing to rule on.

Trump went forward with a new version with no expiry date, tacking on North Korea and Venezuela to the list of targeted countries and implying the updated measure did not simply target Muslim countries.

But Watson — who also issued freezes on the first two attempts — said the order does not improve US security, since individuals who pose risks can already be denied entry under existing law.

The order “plainly discriminates based on nationality” in a manner antithetical to US laws “and the founding principles of this nation,” he wrote.

Watson placed a freeze on the ban on travelers from the six countries, but allowed it to be implemented on North Korea — which sent only a handful of people to the United States last year — and Venezuela, where US sanctions have also already made travel to the United States difficult for many officials.

The White House quickly rejected his argument, calling it “dangerously flawed” and promising to fight the action.

“The entry restrictions in the proclamation apply to countries based on their inability or unwillingness to share critical information necessary to safely vet applications, as well as a threat assessment related to terrorism, instability, and other grave national security concerns,” it said.

“We are therefore confident that the Judiciary will ultimately uphold the President’s lawful and necessary action and swiftly restore its vital protections for the safety of the American people.”



Supreme Court Revives Parts Of Trump Travel Ban Order

Supreme Court Revives Parts Of Trump Travel Ban OrderThe Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s temporary bans on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States.

The court handed a victory to President Trump on Monday in its ruling in which it agreed to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.

It said it would hear arguments on the legality of one of Trump’s signature policies in his first months as president in the court’s next term, which starts in October.

The apex court granted parts of his administration’s emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

It said that the travel ban would go into effect “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Another U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

A second United States appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court’s decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump’s order.

The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge’s ruling blocking parts of the order.

The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban.

Hawaii Federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked a March 6 executive order barring travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

Watson also blocked a directive that suspended the entry of refugee applicants for 120 days, as well as other instructions for the government to study tougher vetting procedures.

The 9th Circuit on Monday upheld the block on Trump’s travel ban and a cap on refugees. However, the appeals court vacated part of the injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting.

Trump’s Bid To Reverse Travel Ban Fails

trumpinaugurationThe U.S Federal Appeals Court has rejected the Trump administration’s request to immediately reinstate a travel ban blocked by a Federal Judge on Friday.

The ban targeted people from seven mainly Muslim countries; something the state lawyers had argued as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The Federal Judge in Seattle had ruled against government lawyers’ claims that states did not have the standing to challenge Mr Trump’s executive order.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department said blocking the travel ban amounted to questioning President Trump’s judgment on national security risk.

It also argued that the ban did not discriminate against freedom of religion rights because it was targeted at specific countries.

Trump was however confident that the Justice Department would win the appeal filed late Saturday.