2 judges find new Trump travel ban discriminatory

Associated Press

GREENBELT, Md.

Rejecting arguments from the government that President Donald 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 Thursday, using the president’s own words as evidence that the order discriminates against Muslims.

The rulings 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, Md., 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.

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.”

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that the ban is lawful and suggested that the judges were overstepping their authority.

“I think for a judge to ignore that statute and talk about tweets or interpreting something that happened during the campaign trail is not in keeping with how they’re supposed to interpret the law,” Spicer said.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it would continue to defend the ban. The case was argued in court by acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who said the ban “doesn’t say anything about religion.”