Updated March 16, 2017; 2:41 p.m. EST
Maryland federal District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a preliminary injunction Thursday morning, providing additional legal roadblocks to President Donald Trump's revised executive order that prohibits travelers from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. Like Judge Derrick Watson, who placed a temporary restraining order on the entire executive order last night just hours before it was scheduled to take effect, Chuang wrote in his decision that he considered the president's intentions beyond the language of the executive order.
Chuang cited use of "explicit, direct statements of President Trump's animus toward Muslims
and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States" during the presidential campaign. Chuang's preliminary injunction, which applies only to the travel ban, will remain in place until the case is litigated. Watson's temporary restraining order applies to both the travel ban and to the reduction of the number of immigrants allowed to settle in the country. It would typically be associated with a time limit. Watson plans expedited hearings to extend the TRO.
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose case on behalf of business and state universities took down the first version of Trump's executive order, argued his renewed case in court last week. A decision on that case, presided over by District Judge James Robart, could be issued today. Both Hawaii and Washington belong to the liberal Ninth Circuit, which last month upheld Robart's TRO on the first travel ban. Maryland is the first court outside the Ninth Circuit to rule against the executive order.
__________________________
Filed March 16, 2017; 12:15 a.m. EST
Honolulu federal District Court Judge Derrick Watson has blocked nationwide the
rollout of President Donald Trump's revised executive order that would bar citizens of six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. The second order, signed March 6 with an effective
date of March 16, eliminated Iraq from the list of banned countries and
provided more specific carveouts for individuals with current travel
visas, for permanent U.S. residents and for those holding temporary work and
student visas. It was explicitly crafted to address several of the legal objections leveled against the original executive order. The revised order has been acknowledged as more difficult to challenge in court.
Nevertheless, the state of Washington, joined by six other states, and Hawaii are bringing suits against the order mainly on the grounds that the current ban remains unconstitutional. They also argue harm to the states' business communities and economies.
The ruling in the Hawaii case—which was brought by state Attorney General Douglas Chin on behalf of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii—hinged largely on Trump's public statements leading up to the executive order. In his decision, Watson quoted Trump's campaign pledge to enact "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and concluded that any “reasonable, objective observer” would see the new order as
“issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of
its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”
The Justice Department argued that the executive order lacked a religious angle of any kind and that the six targeted countries were identified for their weak visa requirements prior to Trump taking office.
Speaking at a rally in Tennessee, Trump called Watson's decision political and a "terrible ruling," telling the crowd that the "danger is clear; the law is clear; the need for my executive order is clear." Trump also said the administration would take the case to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to enact the order. Yet he may not have helped his constitutionality case when he also told the crowd he would prefer to go back to his original executive order, calling the revised ban "a watered-down version of the first order."
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon have joined Washington State in its lawsuit against the revised travel ban. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of state universities and business, including tech giants Microsoft and Amazon, as well as travel industry heavyweight Expedia, all of which contributed amicus briefs that supported Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson in bringing the suit that led to the nationwide injunction against Trump's original travel ban. The briefs cited business travel disruption as a major concern.
The Association of Corporate Travel Executives, the Global Business
Travel Association and the U.S. Travel Association all have spoken out about
the chilling effect these executive orders have had on business
travel, particularly meetings travel, citing $185 million in industry
travel losses in the weak following the initial executive order, along
with poll results that showed travel and meeting managers shying away from the
U.S. as a preferred location for events. In addition, travel buyers voiced concern over uncertainty and even harassment
at U.S. border crossings.