Federal Court Enjoins Travel Ban 2.0, Ninth Circuit Declines to Rehear Washington v. Trump
In this order, federal district court judge Derrick Watson entered a restraining order barring implementation of Sections 2 (travel suspension from six predominantly Muslim nations) and 6 (suspension of refugee admissions) of President Trump’s March 6 immigration executive order (also known as Travel Ban 2.0). (The Hogan Lovells law firm represents the state of Hawaii in the case and has posted a variety of court documents online). As the court summarizes,
“Plaintiffs State of Hawai‘i (“State”) and Ismail Elshikh, Ph.D. seek a nationwide temporary restraining order that would prohibit the Federal Defendants from “enforcing or implementing Sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order” before it takes effect. Pls.’ Mot. for TRO 4, Mar. 8, 2017, ECF No. 65.3 Upon evaluation of the parties’ submissions, and following a hearing on March 15, 2017, the Court concludes that, on the record before it, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO (ECF. No. 65) is granted for the reasons detailed below.”
Here is the complaint in Hawaii v. Trump. Judge Watson followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit in Washington v. Trump on the issue of standing, finding that the state of Hawaii had similar economic injuries as the state of Washington had established (i.e., harms to the state’s economy and public universities but also harms to tourism to the state). Besides the standing of the state of Hawaii, the court found that a U.S. citizen’s rights could be affected by the executive order (by denial of admission of his wife’s mother, a Syrian citizen). The court found that the evidence, including President Trump’s own statements, evidenced anti-Muslim animus and demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the Establishment Clause claim.
Earlier in the day, the Ninth Circuit denied the motion for rehearing en banc, over a vociferous dissent on the scope of judicial review by Judges Jay Bybee joined by Judges Alex Kozinski, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea, and Sandra Ikuta, in Washington v. Trump, which refused to lift a stay allowing Trump’s fi4rst version of the travel suspension to go into effect.
For a compilation of documents related to the many cases challenging President Trump’s immigration executive orders, click here.
UPFDATE (March 16, 7:30 PST): A district court in Maryland also has entered a restraining order on important sections of the travel ban 2.0. Here is the order.
KJ