This article is from the source 'guardian' 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 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/mar/16/trump-travel-ban-blocked-nationwide-hawaii-court-live

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 13 Version 14
Trump says federal judge's travel ban block is 'unprecedented overreach' – as it happened Donald Trump says judge's travel ban block is 'unprecedented overreach' – as it happened
(35 minutes later)
5.54am GMT5.54am GMT
05:5405:54
SummarySummary
Claire PhippsClaire Phipps
A federal district court judge in Hawaii has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Donald Trump’s second travel ban, forcing a nationwide halt to the administration’s flagship policy hours before it was due to come into effect.A federal district court judge in Hawaii has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Donald Trump’s second travel ban, forcing a nationwide halt to the administration’s flagship policy hours before it was due to come into effect.
What the judge saidWhat the judge said
Judge Derrick Watson said there was:Judge Derrick Watson said there was:
significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the executive order and its related predecessor … The illogic 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.significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the executive order and its related predecessor … The illogic 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.
The judge’s ruling cited several comments made by Trump himself, as well as senior advisers Stephen Miller and Rudy Giuliani, indicating that the motivation for the executive order was to ban Muslims:The judge’s ruling cited several comments made by Trump himself, as well as senior advisers Stephen Miller and Rudy Giuliani, indicating that the motivation for the executive order was to ban Muslims:
These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the executive order, and, in many cases, made by the executive himself, betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose.These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the executive order, and, in many cases, made by the executive himself, betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose.
Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the court for purposes of the instant motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the executive order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the court for purposes of the instant motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the executive order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.
What Trump saidWhat Trump said
Trump, speaking at a campaign rally in Nashville, denounced the ruling, calling itTrump, speaking at a campaign rally in Nashville, denounced the ruling, calling it
an unprecedented judicial overreach.an unprecedented judicial overreach.
The president – in words that could hinder his cause – called the revised travel ban a “watered-down version” of his original order, and told his audience:The president – in words that could hinder his cause – called the revised travel ban a “watered-down version” of his original order, and told his audience:
We’re going to fight this terrible ruling. We’re going to take this as far as we need to, right up to the supreme court …We’re going to fight this terrible ruling. We’re going to take this as far as we need to, right up to the supreme court …
I think we ought to go back to the first one [executive order] and go all the way … We’re gonna win it, we’re gonna win it.I think we ought to go back to the first one [executive order] and go all the way … We’re gonna win it, we’re gonna win it.
What happens next?What happens next?
The revised travel ban, which was due to come into effect at midnight ET, cannot be implemented.The revised travel ban, which was due to come into effect at midnight ET, cannot be implemented.
The court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) – which means a further hearing must take place to determine whether it should be extended. The judge indicated this should happen speedily. Trump’s comments suggest the justice department will appeal against the ruling.The court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) – which means a further hearing must take place to determine whether it should be extended. The judge indicated this should happen speedily. Trump’s comments suggest the justice department will appeal against the ruling.
Read moreRead more
Federal judge in Hawaii blocks revised Trump travel ban nationwideFederal judge in Hawaii blocks revised Trump travel ban nationwide
‘The illogic is palpable’: key quotes from Hawaii judge’s scathing ruling‘The illogic is palpable’: key quotes from Hawaii judge’s scathing ruling
Austin Sarat: Trump’s loose talk came back to haunt himAustin Sarat: Trump’s loose talk came back to haunt him
Judge’s ruling in full (pdf)Judge’s ruling in full (pdf)
UpdatedUpdated
at 5.57am GMTat 5.57am GMT
5.34am GMT5.34am GMT
05:3405:34
Sabrina SiddiquiSabrina Siddiqui
As Donald Trump’s second attempt at introducing a controversial Muslim travel ban neared its scheduled – and now interrupted – start, few would have been hoping for its success as anxiously as his senior adviser Stephen Miller.As Donald Trump’s second attempt at introducing a controversial Muslim travel ban neared its scheduled – and now interrupted – start, few would have been hoping for its success as anxiously as his senior adviser Stephen Miller.
Miller was the policy’s 31-year-old architect and was at the center of the troubled first attempt to introduce a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries in late January.Miller was the policy’s 31-year-old architect and was at the center of the troubled first attempt to introduce a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries in late January.
Miller was removed from the process of writing the revised travel ban because of the legal challenges that mired the initial policy, and officials at the agencies tasked with implementing the order had made a more concerted effort to avoid such legal problems this time.Miller was removed from the process of writing the revised travel ban because of the legal challenges that mired the initial policy, and officials at the agencies tasked with implementing the order had made a more concerted effort to avoid such legal problems this time.
But an interview Miller gave to Fox News late in January was used by legal opponents to prove that the underpinnings were one and the same, and was even cited in a temporary restraining order (TRO) that a federal judge in Hawaii placed on the revised travel ban on Wednesday night.But an interview Miller gave to Fox News late in January was used by legal opponents to prove that the underpinnings were one and the same, and was even cited in a temporary restraining order (TRO) that a federal judge in Hawaii placed on the revised travel ban on Wednesday night.
“Fundamentally,” Miller said, “you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court, and those will be addressed.“Fundamentally,” Miller said, “you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court, and those will be addressed.
“But, in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.”“But, in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.”
5.17am GMT5.17am GMT
05:1705:17
Senator Elizabeth Warren says the latest block to the administration’s travel ban(s) means it’s “0 for 2 vs the constitution”:Senator Elizabeth Warren says the latest block to the administration’s travel ban(s) means it’s “0 for 2 vs the constitution”:
Turns out, an illegal Muslim ban by another name is still an illegal Muslim ban. So the courts just blocked @realDonaldTrump's second one.Turns out, an illegal Muslim ban by another name is still an illegal Muslim ban. So the courts just blocked @realDonaldTrump's second one.
.@realDonaldTrump, your Muslim ban is now 0 for 2 vs the Constitution. Stop fighting the rule of law and start fighting for all Americans..@realDonaldTrump, your Muslim ban is now 0 for 2 vs the Constitution. Stop fighting the rule of law and start fighting for all Americans.
4.52am GMT4.52am GMT
04:5204:52
We’ve rounded up some of the key quotes from the Hawaiian district court ruling, including this stinging rebuke to the government argument that the order barring travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was not a Muslim ban:We’ve rounded up some of the key quotes from the Hawaiian district court ruling, including this stinging rebuke to the government argument that the order barring travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was not a Muslim ban:
The illogic 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.The illogic 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.
4.37am GMT4.37am GMT
04:3704:37
One of the most striking elements of the Hawaiian court ruling is that it uses Trump’s own words to agree with arguments that the travel ban is, in effect and motivation, a Muslim ban.One of the most striking elements of the Hawaiian court ruling is that it uses Trump’s own words to agree with arguments that the travel ban is, in effect and motivation, a Muslim ban.
As Austin Sarat, professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, writes for the Guardian today:As Austin Sarat, professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, writes for the Guardian today:
Judge Watson insisted on taking literally Trump’s electioneering statement: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In addition, he offered a long list of statements to that same effect made by Trump and his spokespeople.Judge Watson insisted on taking literally Trump’s electioneering statement: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” In addition, he offered a long list of statements to that same effect made by Trump and his spokespeople.
He called particular attention to the statement of Rudy Giuliani when he went on television to explain how the initial executive order came to be. The judge reminded the readers of his opinion of what Giuliani said: “When [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban’. He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”He called particular attention to the statement of Rudy Giuliani when he went on television to explain how the initial executive order came to be. The judge reminded the readers of his opinion of what Giuliani said: “When [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban’. He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”
The judge tellingly referred to what he referred to as “plainly-worded statements made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the executive order, and, in many cases, made by the executive himself” that, Judge Watson insisted, “betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose” …The judge tellingly referred to what he referred to as “plainly-worded statements made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the executive order, and, in many cases, made by the executive himself” that, Judge Watson insisted, “betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose” …
What Judge Watson wants us to understand, whether we favor or oppose the travel ban, is that when words lose their meaning and their capacity to bind those who use them, neither democracy nor the rule of law can long survive.What Judge Watson wants us to understand, whether we favor or oppose the travel ban, is that when words lose their meaning and their capacity to bind those who use them, neither democracy nor the rule of law can long survive.
4.12am GMT4.12am GMT
04:1204:12
In an unusual intervention, five judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals have issued a statement to say they disagree with three colleagues who last month ruled in favour of halting the original travel ban.In an unusual intervention, five judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals have issued a statement to say they disagree with three colleagues who last month ruled in favour of halting the original travel ban.
The Trump administration abandoned its legal defence of that original executive order when it came up with the revised version – but after today’s ruling in Hawaii, any appeal against that decision will go back to the ninth circuit.The Trump administration abandoned its legal defence of that original executive order when it came up with the revised version – but after today’s ruling in Hawaii, any appeal against that decision will go back to the ninth circuit.
After the February ruling, some judges had called for a rehearing of the case by 11 judges rather than the original three. On Wednesday the call was denied. But five judges – Bybee, Kozinski, Callahan, Bea, and Ikuta – dissented, saying the decision to halt the executive order was wrong.After the February ruling, some judges had called for a rehearing of the case by 11 judges rather than the original three. On Wednesday the call was denied. But five judges – Bybee, Kozinski, Callahan, Bea, and Ikuta – dissented, saying the decision to halt the executive order was wrong.
Their dissent has no bearing on the implementation – or otherwise – of the revised travel ban. But it’s not hard to see that it might be used in support of any appeal against the new restraining order.Their dissent has no bearing on the implementation – or otherwise – of the revised travel ban. But it’s not hard to see that it might be used in support of any appeal against the new restraining order.
The full filing, including the five judges’ dissenting opinion, is here (pdf). Here’s a key section:The full filing, including the five judges’ dissenting opinion, is here (pdf). Here’s a key section:
The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration”.The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration”.
But there is also a rebuke from Bybee for comments made – one can only presume by Trump – against the three judges who made the original ruling, and for the circumstances in which the case has played out:But there is also a rebuke from Bybee for comments made – one can only presume by Trump – against the three judges who made the original ruling, and for the circumstances in which the case has played out:
The panel addressed the government’s request for a stay under the worst conditions imaginable, including extraordinarily compressed briefing and argument schedules and the most intense public scrutiny of our court that I can remember.The panel addressed the government’s request for a stay under the worst conditions imaginable, including extraordinarily compressed briefing and argument schedules and the most intense public scrutiny of our court that I can remember.
Even as I dissent from our decision not to vacate the panel’s flawed opinion, I have the greatest respect for my colleagues. The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse – particularly when they came from the parties.Even as I dissent from our decision not to vacate the panel’s flawed opinion, I have the greatest respect for my colleagues. The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse – particularly when they came from the parties.
It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.It does no credit to the arguments of the parties to impugn the motives or the competence of the members of this court; ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for effective advocacy. Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles. The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all.
3.46am GMT3.46am GMT
03:4603:46
Ed PilkingtonEd Pilkington
While not fulminating about the judge’s ruling on the travel ban, Donald Trump also spent his Wednesday evening talking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News about Twitter and that wire-tap claim against Obama. Ed Pilkington reports:While not fulminating about the judge’s ruling on the travel ban, Donald Trump also spent his Wednesday evening talking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News about Twitter and that wire-tap claim against Obama. Ed Pilkington reports:
Earlier this month Trump sparked a firestorm by claiming on Twitter, without producing any evidence, that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.Earlier this month Trump sparked a firestorm by claiming on Twitter, without producing any evidence, that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.
Carlson pressed Trump on his relaxed approach to accuracy on social media. “Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? Don’t you devalue your words when you can’t provide evidence?” the Fox News host asked.Carlson pressed Trump on his relaxed approach to accuracy on social media. “Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? Don’t you devalue your words when you can’t provide evidence?” the Fox News host asked.
To which the president of the United States replied, slightly indignantly, that there had been evidence: he had read about wiretapping in the New York Times – “the failing New York Times” he corrected himself quickly, realizing he had just committed a faux pas by crediting one of his “dishonest media” enemies as a reliable source.To which the president of the United States replied, slightly indignantly, that there had been evidence: he had read about wiretapping in the New York Times – “the failing New York Times” he corrected himself quickly, realizing he had just committed a faux pas by crediting one of his “dishonest media” enemies as a reliable source.
3.29am GMT3.29am GMT
03:2903:29
Jamiles LarteyJamiles Lartey
It was a dramatically different scene at JFK international airport on Wednesday compared with what unfolded more than six weeks ago when the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban went into effect.It was a dramatically different scene at JFK international airport on Wednesday compared with what unfolded more than six weeks ago when the first iteration of Trump’s travel ban went into effect.
In JFK’s terminal four, the environment was calm and quite ordinary tonight. There were no spontaneous protest attracting thousands and no ad-hoc legal aid services popping up at the terminal’s eateries.In JFK’s terminal four, the environment was calm and quite ordinary tonight. There were no spontaneous protest attracting thousands and no ad-hoc legal aid services popping up at the terminal’s eateries.
The New York Immigration Coalition and the No Ban JFK Coalition both told the Guardian that planned actions in response to the renewed ban were cancelled after the federal court decision halting the ban was announced.The New York Immigration Coalition and the No Ban JFK Coalition both told the Guardian that planned actions in response to the renewed ban were cancelled after the federal court decision halting the ban was announced.
Instead, a multi-ethnic and pan-national crowd of families holding balloons and flowers waited for loved ones to disembark from planes from Dubai, Kuwait, Mexico City, Bogota and Montego Bay. In quotidian fashion, travelers shuffled in and out for coffee, restrooms and ground travel into New York’s five boroughs and beyond.Instead, a multi-ethnic and pan-national crowd of families holding balloons and flowers waited for loved ones to disembark from planes from Dubai, Kuwait, Mexico City, Bogota and Montego Bay. In quotidian fashion, travelers shuffled in and out for coffee, restrooms and ground travel into New York’s five boroughs and beyond.
3.17am GMT3.17am GMT
03:1703:17
What happens next?What happens next?
The revised travel ban, which was due to come into effect at midnight ET – just under one hour from now – cannot be implemented.The revised travel ban, which was due to come into effect at midnight ET – just under one hour from now – cannot be implemented.
The ruling, issued in Hawaii, applies nationwide.The ruling, issued in Hawaii, applies nationwide.
It states:It states:
Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court.Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order across the Nation. Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court.
The court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) – which means a further hearing must take place to determine whether it should be extended. The judge indicated this should happen speedily:The court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) – which means a further hearing must take place to determine whether it should be extended. The judge indicated this should happen speedily:
The Court intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether this Temporary Restraining Order should be extended. The parties shall submit a stipulated briefing and hearing schedule for the Court’s approval forthwith.The Court intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether this Temporary Restraining Order should be extended. The parties shall submit a stipulated briefing and hearing schedule for the Court’s approval forthwith.
3.04am GMT3.04am GMT
03:0403:04
The ruling from Hawaiian district judge Derrick Watson also cast doubt on government claims that the ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was necessary for national security reasons:The ruling from Hawaiian district judge Derrick Watson also cast doubt on government claims that the ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was necessary for national security reasons:
When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO [temporary restraining order].When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO [temporary restraining order].
2.53am GMT2.53am GMT
02:5302:53
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the largest Muslim civil rights group in the US, has welcomed the legal block.The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the largest Muslim civil rights group in the US, has welcomed the legal block.
Cair’s national executive director Nihad Awad said:Cair’s national executive director Nihad Awad said:
We welcome this order as confirmation of the strength of our nation’s system of checks and balances that prevents one branch of government from violating the constitution or the rights of any vulnerable group.We welcome this order as confirmation of the strength of our nation’s system of checks and balances that prevents one branch of government from violating the constitution or the rights of any vulnerable group.
We urge the Trump administration to scrap this Muslim ban entirely because it disrespects both the constitution and America’s longstanding tradition of religious freedom and inclusion.We urge the Trump administration to scrap this Muslim ban entirely because it disrespects both the constitution and America’s longstanding tradition of religious freedom and inclusion.
2.38am GMT2.38am GMT
02:3802:38
You can read the full ruling from the federal district court in Hawaii here (pdf).You can read the full ruling from the federal district court in Hawaii here (pdf).
Here is a key section in which the judge concludes there is nothing “secret about the executive’s motive”:Here is a key section in which the judge concludes there is nothing “secret about the executive’s motive”:
The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts”.The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts”.
The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry.
For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order:Nor is there anything “secret” about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order:
Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”