HONOLULU/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Just hours before President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban was set to go into effect, a U.S. federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued an emergency halt to the order’s implementation.

The action was the latest legal blow to the administration’s efforts to temporarily ban refugees as well as travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries, which the President has said is needed for national security. Trump lashed out at the judge’s ruling, saying it “makes us look weak.”

Trump signed the new ban on March 6 in a bid to overcome legal problems with a January executive order that caused chaos at airports and sparked mass protests before a Washington judge stopped its enforcement in February.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson put an emergency stop to the new order in response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Hawaii, which argued that the order discriminated against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Watson concluded in his ruling that while the order did not mention Islam by name, “a reasonable, objective observer ... would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.” Watson was appointed to the bench by former Democratic President Barack Obama.

Speaking at a rally in Nashville, Trump called his revised executive order a “watered-down version” of his first. “I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I wanted to do in the first place,” Trump said.

Trump called the judge’s block “unprecedented judicial overreach” and said he will take the case “as far as it needs to go,” including to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice called the ruling “flawed both in reasoning and in scope,” adding that the president has broad authority in national security matters. “The Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts,” it said a statement.

The nation’s highest court is currently split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives with Trump’s pick - appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch - still awaiting confirmation.

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.

REBUKE

Watson’s order is only temporary until the broader arguments in the case can be heard. He set an expedited hearing schedule to determine if his ruling should be extended.

Trump’s first travel order was more sweeping than the second revised order. Like the current one, it barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, but it also included Iraq, which was subsequently taken off the list.

Refugees were blocked from entering the country for 120 days in both orders, but an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria was dropped in the new one.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin (L) arrives at the U.S. District Court Ninth Circuit to present his arguments after filing an amended lawsuit against President Donald Trump's new travel ban in Honolulu, Hawaii, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry

The revised ban also excluded legal permanent residents and existing visa holders. It provided a series of waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

Hawaii and other opponents of the ban claimed that the motivation behind it was Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

The government, in its court filings cautioned the court against looking for secret motives in the executive order and against performing “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of heart.”

Watson said he did not need to do that, because evidence of motive could be found in the president’s public statements. He said he did not give credence to the government’s argument that the order was not anti-Muslim because it targeted only a small percentage of Muslim-majority countries.

“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 wrote.

SEVERAL CASES

The case was one of several moving through U.S. courts on Wednesday that were brought by states’ attorneys general and immigrant advocacy groups.

In Maryland, refugee resettlement agencies represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center argued in court for a restraining order.

In Washington state, a group of plaintiffs applying for immigrant visas asked U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle - who suspended the first ban - to stop the new order. Robart was appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush.

Both Judge Robart and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland said they would issue written rulings in their cases, but did not specify a time line.

Washington state, joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon, said in court filings they supported the plaintiffs in Seattle.

If more judges side with Watson, the government’s case may be harder to make at higher courts. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Robart’s ruling against the first ban and Watson referenced that decision in his order.

Various groups and companies said they would be harmed by the travel restrictions.

A group of 58 technology companies, including Airbnb Inc, Lyft Inc and Dropbox Inc, 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.

Slideshow (3 Images)

A longer list of companies, including Apple Inc , Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google - filed a brief opposing the first ban in a different court challenge brought by Washington state, which is ongoing.

It was not immediately clear why fewer tech companies signed on to the brief this time around.</s>UPDATE: 3 p.m.

President Donald Trump says a federal judge in Hawaii demonstrated “unprecedented judicial overreach” when he ordered a temporary halt to Trump’s revised travel ban earlier today.

The president, speaking at a rally in Nashville, said his administration would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re going to win,” he said. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

After hearing arguments this morning in a Honolulu federal courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson granted the state’s motion for a nationwide temporary restraining order on the revised travel ban, saying Trump’s order violates the religious establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“The illogic of the government’s contentions is palpable,” Watson wrote. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

UPDATE: 1:45 p.m.

A federal court judge in Honolulu today granted Hawaii’s request to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban a day before it was schedule to go into effect.

In awarding a nationwide temporary restraining order, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson found that Trump’s order violates the religious establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Watson said that while the new order is more narrowly focused, he can’t ignore what Trump said on the campaign trail, including in a March 2016 interview in which he said, “I think Islam hates us,” and an October interview in which he said the Muslim ban has morphed into extreme vetting.

Watson issued his 43-page ruling early this afternoon after hearing arguments from both sides this morning. He said the state “preliminarily demonstrated” that its universities will suffer monetary damages and intangible harms and the state’s economy is likely to suffer a loss of revenue due to a decline in tourism because of the order.

Watson, who was appointed to the court by former President Barack Obama, said he intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the revised order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

But state attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

UPDATE: 1 p.m.

A federal judge in Hawaii has put President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on hold.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling today after hearing arguments on Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.

His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments today about whether it should be put into practice.

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

———

Associated Press

UPDATE: 11:05 a.m.

A federal court judge in Honolulu heard arguments this morning in Hawaii’s case to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban but did not make a ruling from the bench.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said he would issue a ruling on the proposed temporary restraining order before 6 p.m., which is midnight Eastern Time. The executive order is schedule to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the revised order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

But state attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu is hearing arguments this morning for and against the state of Hawaii’s request to temporarily block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The hearing on the proposed temporary restraining order is being held in Honolulu on the day before the ban is scheduled to go into effect.

State Attorney General Douglas Chin arrived at the Honolulu federal courtroom today after filing the challenge last week, claiming that the ban will harm Hawaii by highlighting the state’s dependence on international travelers, its ethnic diversity and its welcoming reputation as the Aloha State.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But federal government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also has a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

U.S. government attorneys argue that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

State attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

Hawaii’s lawsuit includes a Muslim plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque. He says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii.

It’s not clear when Watson will rule on the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.

Attorneys from the Washington, D.C., law firm Hawaii has hired will participate by phone. Justice Department attorneys are also phoning in for the hearing.

Fourteen state attorneys general and 58 technology companies have filed amicus briefs supporting Hawaii’s challenge. The attorneys general argue that the revised ban retains the unconstitutional components of the original order, including a broad ban on entry by nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries and a suspension of the refugee program.

Hawaii is one of several states where the travel ban is being challenged before its planned implementation Thursday.

In Maryland today, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang said he will issue a ruling in another lawsuit challenging the travel ban, but he did not promise that he would rule before the ban takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. He also said he may issue a narrow ruling that does not address the ban nationwide.

The lawsuit in Maryland was filed by the ACLU and other groups representing immigrants and refugees, as well as some individual plaintiffs. They argue banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. They also say it’s illegal for Trump to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half.

Government lawyers argued the ban was revised significantly to address legal concerns and no longer singles out Muslims.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart will hear arguments today in the lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The group says the new version of the travel ban discriminates against Muslims and raises the same legal issues as the original.

Robart also is overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state. He also issued the order halting nationwide implementation of the first ban. Among the plaintiffs in the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project case is a legal permanent resident who has been trying to bring her 16-year-old son from war-torn Syria.

———

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Back to top

Temporary restraining order by Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Scribd</s>Hours before it was to take effect, President Donald Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii who questioned the government's argument that the measure was motivated by national security concerns.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order blocks the flow of students and tourists to the state and concluded that Hawaii is likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.

Watson issued his 43-page ruling less than two hours after hearing Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order to stop the ban from being put into practice.

The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban. Federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments about whether it should be allowed to take effect early Thursday.

Watson was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in U.S. history. He received his law degree from Harvard in 1991.

In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the measure still discriminates against Muslims.

Government attorneys argued that the ban was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of 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 Justice Department.

Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that Trump's statements on the campaign trail and statements from his advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is to ban Muslims. Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has said the revised order was designed to have "the same basic policy outcome" as the first.

The new version of the ban details more of a national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns about violating the due-process rights of travelers.

It applies only to new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to travelers who already have visas.

"Generally, courts defer on national security to the government," said U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. "Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?"

In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to Miller's statement and said the government had put out misleading and contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific countries would make the nation safer.

The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it's against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.

In the Hawaii case, the federal government said there was no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii officials offered only "generalized allegations" of harm.

Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General challenged Hawaii's claim that the order violates due-process rights of Ismail Elshikh as a U.S. citizen who wants his mother-in-law to visit his family from Syria. He says courts have not extended due-process rights outside of a spousal relationship.

Neal Katyal, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing Hawaii, called the story of Elshiskh, an Egyptian immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, "the story of America."

Wall told the judge that if he is inclined to issue an injunction, it should be tailored specifically to Hawaii and not nationwide.

In Washington state, U.S. District Judge James Robart — who halted the original ban last month — heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is making arguments similar to the ACLU's in the Maryland case.

Robart said he is most interested in two questions presented by the group's challenge to the ban: whether the ban violates federal immigration law, and whether the affected immigrants would be "irreparably harmed" should the ban go into effect.

He spent much of Wednesday afternoon's hearing grilling the lawyers about two seeming conflicting federal laws on immigration — one which gives the president the authority to keep "any class of aliens" out of the country, and another that forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of nationality when it comes to issuing immigrant visas.

Robart said he would issue a written order, but he did not say when. He is also overseeing the challenge brought by Washington state.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson argues that the new order harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon, which rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have joined the claim.

Washington and Hawaii say the order also violates the First Amendment, which bars the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. On that point, they say, the new ban is no different than the old. The states' First Amendment claim has not been resolved.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the original ban but did not rule on the discrimination claim.

Johnson reported from Seattle. Associated Press Writer Ben Nuckols in Greenbelt, Maryland, also contributed to this report.</s>A federal judge in Hawaii has put President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on hold.U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling Wednesday after hearing arguments on Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be put into practice.Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.</s>HONOLULU — Hours before it was to take effect, President Donald Trump's revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii who questioned the government's argument that the measure was motivated by national security concerns.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order blocks the flow of students and tourists to the state and concluded that Hawaii is likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.

Watson issued his 43-page ruling less than two hours after hearing Hawaii's request for a temporary restraining order to stop the ban from being put into practice.

The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban. Federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments about whether it should be allowed to take effect early Thursday.

Watson was nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2012 and is currently the only Native Hawaiian judge serving on the federal bench and the fourth in U.S. history. He received his law degree from Harvard in 1991.

In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the measure still discriminates against Muslims.

Government attorneys argued that the ban was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of 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 Justice Department.

Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that Trump's statements on the campaign trail and statements from his advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is to ban Muslims. Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has said the revised order was designed to have "the same basic policy outcome" as the first.

The new version of the ban details more of a national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns about violating the due-process rights of travelers.

It applies only to new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to travelers who already have visas.

"Generally, courts defer on national security to the government," said U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. "Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?"

In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to Miller's statement and said the government had put out misleading and contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific countries would make the nation safer.

The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it's against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.

In the Hawaii case, the federal government said there was no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii officials offered only "generalized allegations" of harm.</s>United States President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban order was blocked by yet another federal judge on Thursday, reported AP. After a Hawaii judge put a stay on the order even before it could be implemented on Wednesday, a Maryland judge followed suit. The second order placed restrictions on people from six Muslim-majority countries, after the first order was also suspended by the judiciary.

The American Civil Liberities Union and other advocacy groups that work for immigrants and refugees had moved the Maryland court. The petitioners had held that the ban was discriminatory, even as the Trump administration said that it was meant to stop letting terrorists into the country.

Even though the government said the revised order was a watered down version of the first one, it failed to convince the Maryland judge. “Despite these changes, the history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realisation of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” said Judge Theodore Chuang. The judge has granted a preliminary injunction on the order that is applicable for the whole country.

Trump had defended the first order and repeatedly said it was “not a Muslim ban”, but the restrictions brought in by his move had wreaked havoc on immigrant families, especially those with valid visas. Protests had been launched across the country, including at airports, against the travel ban. His executive order had also been criticised by politicians, activists, immigration advocates and even United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.</s>A federal judge in Hawaii blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on entry into the United States on Wednesday, just hours before it was to have taken effect.

The ruling, granting a request for a temporary restraining order by the state of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, stalls the president’s second attempt to suspend admission of nearly all refugees for 120 days and to restrict visas for nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, who said the restraining order applies nationwide, said Trump’s travel order was religiously discriminatory.

Watson, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the district court in 2013, didn’t formally rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself. Critics, including Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, have called it a thinly veiled unconstitutional “Muslim ban,” which Trump has denied.

But Watson wrote that he believed Hawaii had a “strong likelihood of success on the merits” in its attempt to overturn Trump’s order on religious grounds.

The court record, according to Watson, shows “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order,” in violation of the Constitution.

Watson cited public statements by Trump that he said established that the order was targeted at Muslims — including his comments after he signed the first executive order in January that he was “establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America” because “we don’t want them here.”

Watson also cited remarks by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a prominent Trump supporter, who said in January: “When he [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.'”

“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” Watson wrote.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration had no immediate comment.

In addition to Honolulu, hearings on similar requests were held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Bethesda, Maryland, and in Seattle, where judges didn’t immediately issue any rulings.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office challenged the initial executive in a lawsuit that resulted in its being blocked, called the Hawaii ruling “fantastic news” on Twitter.

Elshikh, Hawaii’s co-plaintiff, is a legal U.S. resident, but his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would have been barred from legally entering the United States under the president’s order. He and the state argued that Trump’s order would discriminate on the basis of nationality and would harm tourism and recruitment of foreign workers.

In the Maryland hearing, refugees’ advocates and civil liberties groups also argued that the order would discriminate against Muslims, “stigmatizing and demeaning one religious group.”

Trump’s first order in late January caused chaos at airports, with students, professors and green card holders among those reporting that they were turned away or detained and were subjected to lengthy travel delays and questioning.

The federal judge in Seattle, James Robart, blocked the order in a Feb. 3 ruling, and an appeals court refused to reinstate it. Trump issued the order on March 6.

It removed Iraq from the list of affected countries and exempted lawful permanent residents and green card holders. It also dropped a provision that would have indefinitely suspended admission to the United States of refugees from Syria. Trump has said the restrictions were necessary to protect Americans from terrorism.</s>A federal judge in Hawaii blocked President Donald Trump’s new travel ban on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the ban was set to go into effect.

The ruling — which applies nationwide — means that travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees will be able to travel to the US.

The Trump administration took over a month to rewrite the travel ban order after multiple federal courts blocked its implementation last month. Unlike the previous executive order, the new one removed Iraq from the list of banned countries, exempted those with green cards and visas, and removed a provision that arguably prioritizes certain religious minorities.

US District Court Judge Derrick Watson concluded that the new executive order still failed to pass legal muster.

“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,” Watson wrote.

“Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries,” Watson added. “It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.”

“It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam,” Watson added. “Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.”

Several states and immigration advocates say the new order still suffers from legal flaws and asked federal judges to weigh in by issuing temporary restraining orders blocking the ban before Thursday. Federal judges in Maryland and Washington state may also issue rulings Wednesday.

The new ban was announced earlier this month and set to take effect Thursday. It would ban people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.

The White House did not immediately comment on Watson’s ruling, but the Trump administration argues the ban is necessary to protect the nation’s security.

“We cannot compromise our nation’s security by allowing visitors entry when their own governments are unable or unwilling to provide the information we need to vet them responsibly, or when those governments actively support terrorism,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said March 6.</s>GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — A federal judge in Greenbelt, Maryland, has blocked President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting six predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge Theodore Chuang ruled Thursday in a case brought near the nation’s capital by the ACLU and other groups representing immigrants, refugees and their families.

The groups argued that the underlying rationale of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, making it unconstitutional. Chuang granted a preliminary injunction nationwide basis.

Government lawyers argued that the ban was substantially revised from an earlier version signed in January that was later blocked by a federal judge in Washington state. They said the ban was ordered in the interest of national security to protect the U.S. from “radical Islamic terrorism.”

The Maryland plaintiffs also argued the ban illegally reduces the number of refugees authorized to enter the U.S. this year.

Chuang granted the preliminary injunction nationwide basis pending further orders from this court. He declined to stay the ruling should an emergency appeal be filed.

It was the latest ruling against Trump’s revised travel ban.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked the ban, rejecting the government’s claims that the revised travel ban is about national security, not discrimination.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order constricted the flow of students and tourists to the state.

His ruling prevented the executive order, announced March 6, from going into effect Thursday.

Trump responded to the Hawaii ruling Wednesday at a campaign-style rally in Nashville, Tennessee. He said the ruling was “unprecedented judicial overreach” that “makes us look weak.”</s>A defiant Donald Trump has pledged to appeal against a federal judge’s order placing an immediate halt on his revised travel ban, describing the ruling as judicial overreach that made the United States look weak.

In granting the temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit by the state of Hawaii, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson found on Wednesday that “a reasonable, objective observer ... would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Early on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in a similar case in Maryland brought by refugee resettlement agencies represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

Chuang ruled that the agencies were likely to succeed in proving that the travel ban portion of the executive order was intended to be a ban on Muslims and, as a result, violates the U.S. Constitution’s religious freedom protection.

Explainer: Trump’s immigration ban, Part II: What we know so far

“To avoid sowing seeds of division in our nation, upholding this fundamental constitutional principle at the core of our nation’s identity plainly serves a significant public interest,” Chuang wrote in his ruling.

The actions were the latest legal blow to the administration’s efforts to temporarily ban refugees as well as travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries. The president has said the ban is needed for national security.

However, the orders, while a victory for the plaintiffs, are only a first step and the government could ultimately win its underlying case. Watson and Chuang were appointed to the bench by former Democratic President Barack Obama.

Trump, speaking after the Hawaii ruling at a rally in Nashville, called his revised executive order a “watered-down version” of his first.

The president said he would take the case “as far as it needs to go,” including to the Supreme Court, in order to get a ruling that the ban is legal.

The likely next stop if the administration decides to contest the Hawaii judge’s ruling would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Three judges on the Ninth Circuit upheld a restraining order on the first travel ban issued by a Washington state judge.

At that point, the government’s legal options were to ask for a hearing by a larger panel of judges or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Instead, the administration withdrew the ban, promising to retool it in ways that would address the legal issues.

If the Ninth Circuit were to uphold the Hawaii court’s ruling, an appeal to the Supreme Court would be complicated by its current makeup of four conservative and four liberal judges, with no ninth justice since the death of Antonin Scalia more than a year ago.

The travel ban has deeply divided the country on liberal and conservative lines, and it is unlikely that a ninth Supreme Court justice would be seated in time to hear an appeal in this case.

Trump signed the new ban on March 6 in a bid to overcome legal problems with his January executive order, which caused chaos at airports and sparked mass protests before a Washington judge stopped its enforcement in February.

Watson’s order is only temporary until the broader arguments in the case can be heard. He set an expedited hearing schedule to determine if his ruling should be extended.

Trump’s first travel order was more sweeping than the second revised order. Like the current one, it barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, but it also included Iraq, which was subsequently taken off the list.

The revised ban also excluded legal permanent residents and existing visa holders and provided waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

Hawaii and other opponents of the ban claimed that the motivation behind it was Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

In Washington state, a group of plaintiffs applying for immigrant visas asked U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle - who suspended the first ban - to stop the new order. Robart was appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush.

Judge Robart said he would issue a written ruling, but did not specify a time line.
A U.S. federal judge in Hawaii, finding the revised federal immigration/refugee executive order violates the U.S. Constitution's religious establishment clause, grants the state of Hawaii's motion for a nationwide temporary restraining order on these rules that were set to become effective at midnight. President Donald Trump vows to appeal this ruling. Two other federal courts held hearings on similar requests filed by the states of Maryland and Washington; neither of these judges issued a ruling.