Justice Department defends Trump’s travel ban from legal challenges across the country

The executive order instituting the ban on immigrants from the six predominantly Muslim countries is Trump’s second crack at what critics believe is the implementation of the “Muslim ban” he promised on the campaign trail – a promise that remains on his official website. Last month the ninth circuit unanimously ruled to enforce a temporary nationwide restraining order against Trump’s first order, which was chaotically rolled out and subject to a number of legal challenges across the country. White House staff calmed the president down the only way they know how: By turning on the television.

While the rulings are preliminary, a victory at such an early stage in the case suggests that opponents of the ban have a good chance of ultimately winning, one legal observer said Thursday. “The need for my executive order is clear”.

The cases are State of Hawaii v. Trump, 17-cv-00050, U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii (Honolulu), and International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 17-0361, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt). Together, 2,466 refugees from those countries have been resettled in the US since Trump entered the White House.

Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said the ban was needed to improve vetting of people entering the United States in order to prevent attacks and said he had no doubt that it would be upheld by higher courts.

But the federal government can’t write the allegation of animus out of the text of an executive order. Robart could issue an order immediately after that, or schedule a hearing later this week.

The state of Hawaii, in challenging the second ban, specifically cited the impact it would have on the University of Hawaii. Hawaii is joined by a Muslim imam who claims his family and members of his mosque will be hurt by the ban.

Justice Department attorneys argued in a motion Friday that U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson was essentially based on the argument that the ban appears to unconstitutionally targets Muslims.

Watson indicated that the court would not stay its decision in the event of an appeal.

In seeking clarification, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit “failed to meaningfully challenge” another section of Trump’s order that bars refugees from traveling to the United States for 120 days and caps the number that will be allowed into the USA this fiscal year at 50,000 – a drop of almost half.

A hearing in a separate lawsuit by Hawaii already has been scheduled for Wednesday.

President of the United States of America Donald Trump, at the moment, is at a historic low in approval ratings for a new president. Unlike the original order, it says people with visas won’t be affected and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities. It stated that the President’s Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation’s security.

“Because the Iraqi government made those changes, President Trump lifted the travel ban on Iraq”, Jersild said.

“Its text and objective are explicitly religion-neutral, and it no longer grants any preference for victims of religious persecution”, they wrote in the Hawaii case.