Trump's Revised 'Muslim Ban' Halted by Federal Judge in Hawaii

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Wednesday said he would put an emergency halt on President Donald Trump's revised travel ban that placed temporary U.S. entry restrictions on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

RELATED:
5 Things You Need to Know About Trumps Travel Ban

The new ban was set to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday.

"The judge specifically said it was that intent to create this Muslim ban that violated the Constitution's establishment clause ... he pointed to several instances, very specifically, saying it was President Trump's own words on the campaign trail ... advocating the 'complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,'" said CNN correspondent Jessica Schneider.

The revised ban showed no “genuine changes in constitutionally significant conditions,” the judge wrote in his decision. It prohibits Donald Trump and "and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them" from enforcing the ban.

Hawaii's attorney general argued the states' universities and tourist economy would be harmed by the travel restrictions and also asked that the law be enjoined.

Court papers were also filed by the state of Washington and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon asking a judge for an emergency halt to the March 6 order from taking effect on Thursday. 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.

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.

Refugee resettlement agencies suing the government asked a federal judge at a hearing in Maryland on Wednesday morning to halt implementation of the ban, arguing it discriminates on the basis of religion and violates the U.S. Constitution.

RELATED:
Trump Signs Revised 'Muslim Ban' and It Is Still 'Indefensible'

The president's executive order, which the administration says is necessary for national security, temporarily bars the entry of most refugees as well as travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

Both the refugee agencies and the government's lawyers faced tough questioning in the Greenbelt courtroom from U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, who drilled down on the question of who would be harmed by the order, signed by Trump on March 6.

The agencies are asking the judge to enforce a temporary, nationwide halt to the ban while the case moves forward. Chuang said he would try to issue a written ruling on Wednesday before the order is implemented, but said it might come after.

The executive order replaced an earlier, broader order that was signed amid much fanfare a week after the Republican president's Jan. 20 inauguration and that was soon hit by more than two dozen lawsuits around the country.

In response to the legal challenges, the new order was more narrowly tailored to exclude legal permanent residents and existing visa holders. It also provides a series of waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

But critics have charged that the intent behind both policies was to discriminate against Muslims.

Chuang told the refugee organizations, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, who would be most adversely affected by the new policy, that to move forward with the suit the groups have to prove harm, or "standing."

The government countered that the pause is only temporary and is needed to improve vetting processes to protect against terrorist attacks.

The new order bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, but Iraq is no longer on the list. Refugees are still barred for 120 days, but an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria was deleted.

The Department of Justice lawyers said the president has broad discretion to implement immigration policy and warned against the courts curbing those powers.

"If this court went down that road I think we could be in uncharted waters," said Jeffrey Wall, an attorney arguing for the Department of Justice.

There will also be a hearing on Wednesday in a separate case brought by the state of Hawaii, which has argued that its universities and tourist economy would be harmed by the travel restrictions.