This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hawaii-judge-donald-trump-travel-ban-muslim-countries-a7632366.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Hawaii judge puts Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold Hawaii judge puts Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold
(35 minutes later)
Donald Trump’s wish to prevent citizens from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US has suffered another set back, after a judge put his revised travel ban on hold.Donald Trump’s wish to prevent citizens from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US has suffered another set back, after a judge put his revised travel ban on hold.
Derrick Watson, a US district judge in Hawaii, ordered the stay just hours before Mr Trump’s order was due to come into effect. The nationwide ruling means that people should not be impacted by the the order. Derrick Watson, a US district judge in Hawaii, ordered the temporary stay just hours before Mr Trump’s action was due to come into effect at midnight. The nationwide ruling means that people should not be impacted by the order.
Mr Watson was one of a several judges across the US that listened to legal arguments on Wednesday. Up to half-a-dozen states were seeking to block the executive order and judges in Maryland and the state of Washington also heard cases. Mr Watson was one of three federal judges across the US that listened to legal arguments on Wednesday. Up to half-a-dozen states are seeking to block the executive order and judges in Maryland and the state of Washington also heard cases.
Mr Trump had issued a revised travel ban after his first sparked international protests and suffered several legal setbacks from courts who judged it unconstitutional. He hoped the new order, which did not relate to Green Card holders and which removed references to a person’s religious, would be legally more protected. Mr Trump had issued a revised travel ban after his first sparked international protests and suffered several legal setbacks from courts who judged it unconstitutional. He hoped the new order, which did not involve green card holders and which removed any reference to religion, would be legally more watertight.
But activists said the new ban still discriminated not he ground of nationality and indeed religion. But activists said the new ban still discriminated, both on the grounds of nationality and indeed religion.
Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups said that Mr Trump’s statements on the campaign trail during the election, and from his advisers since he took office, made clear the intention was to block Muslims. Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups, said that Mr Trump’s statements on the campaign trail during the 2016 election, and from his advisers since he took office, made clear the intention was to block Muslims.
The countries included in the measure were Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, and the order would have prevented them from entering the country for 90 day.  The countries included in the measure were Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, and the order would have prevented their citizens them from entering the US for 90 days. 
Iraq was removed from the order after complaints from the Pentagon that Iraqis who had worked for the US military and who were in peril as a result, would suffer. There was also concern that the move would demoralise a nation at the forefront of the fight against Isis. Iraq was removed from the order after complaints from the Pentagon that Iraqis who had worked for the US military following the 2003 invasion, and who were in peril as a result, would suffer. There was also concern the move would demoralise a nation at the forefront of the fight against Isis.
The island state, which has a Democratic governor and legislative assembly, had argued that Mr Trump’s revised order discriminated on the grounds of   The island state of Hawaii, which has a Democratic governor and legislative assembly, had argued that Mr Trump’s revised order discriminated on the grounds of nationality, and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six countries named in the ban. 
nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six countries named in the ban.  It also said the order would harm its crucial tourism industry, and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers. 
It also said the order would harm its crucial tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers. 
The Associated Press said that a group of 58 tech companies, including Airbnb, Lyft and Dropbox, filed a “friend of the court' brief in the case saying the order hurt their ability to recruit the best talent from around the world.The Associated Press said that a group of 58 tech companies, including Airbnb, Lyft and Dropbox, filed a “friend of the court' brief in the case saying the order hurt their ability to recruit the best talent from around the world.
A longer list of companies—that included giants like Apple, Facebook and Google—filed a brief opposing the first ban in a different court challenge brought by Washington state, which is ongoing. A longer list of companies, which included giants such as Apple, Facebook and Google, filed a brief opposing the first ban in a different court challenge brought by Washington state, which is ongoing.
During the election campaign, Mr Trump had promised to tighten immigration regulations. During the election campaign, Mr Trump had promised to tighten immigration regulations. 
While his original order, signed on January 27, was considered racist and counter-productive by many, large number of the president’s supporters backed the move. Mr Trump himself questioned the professional of the judges who ruled against him. While his original order, signed on January 27, was considered racist and counter-productive by many, large number of the president’s supporters backed the move.
Mr Trump himself questioned the professionalism of the judges who ruled against him.
On Wednesday night, Mr Trump’s spokesman, Sean Spicer, did not immediately respond to questions from reporters about the court decision.On Wednesday night, Mr Trump’s spokesman, Sean Spicer, did not immediately respond to questions from reporters about the court decision.
  The case in Hawaii was one of several that were under motion on Wednesday, after more than half-a-dozen states, including Washington, Oregon, California and New York, said they were going to try and stop Mr Trump’s revised order, which he signed on March 6.
  In Maryland, lawyers told a federal judge that the measure still discriminated against Muslims. Government officials, in turn, argued that the ban had been evised to remove an exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries. 
  “It doesn’t say anything about religion. It doesn’t draw any religious distinctions,” said Jeffrey Wall, who argued for the Department of Justice.
In Washington state, US District Judge James Robart, who halted the original ban last month, heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
Washington state’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, was at the hearing in Seattle, when he was told of the decision of the judge in Hawaii.
“Fantastic news,” Mr Ferguson said afterwards. “It’s very exciting. At this point it's a team effort - multiple lawsuits and multiple states.’