A Hawaii federal judge has issued restraining orders against President Trump’s revised travel ban just hours before it was supposed to be imposed. The restraining makes some parts of ban null and void.
According to Derrick Watson the U.S. District Judge “the State of Hawaii and a Muslim leader are hoping that their claim would be successful that “Trump’s order internationally targeting Muslims and by doing so it violates the constitution which guarantees the establishment of religion.
Derrick rejects the Trump administration’s claim that the new directive is not against Islam or targeting Muslims particularly rather it focuses on six countries that account even less than 9% of world’s Muslim population.
“The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable,” wrote Watson. “The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise.”
The ruling proves a serious blow and is a second one in the row that limits Trump’s efforts to curb terrorism in the USA by imposing immigration ban on these 6 predominantly Muslim countries.
President Trump slammed the halting in a rally in Nashville during the speech the moment he heard about the new restraining order was issued.
“This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach….This ruling makes us look weak,” the president declared before appearing to vow to take the issue to the Supreme Court. “This is a watered-down version of the first one….I think we should go back to the first one and go all the way which is what I wanted to do in the first place.”
“Trump’s statements tonight? He should just continue talking, because he’s making our arguments for us,” Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director, National Immigration Law Center.
A Department of Justice spokesman called the ruling being “flawed both in reasoning and in scope,” added that the establishment will “continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts.”