A federal judge in Hawaii decided Wednesday to extend his order blocking President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued the longer-lasting hold on the ban just hours after hearing arguments.
Hawaii says the policy discriminates against Muslims and hurts the state’s tourism-dependent economy. The implied message in the revised ban is like a “neon sign flashing ‘Muslim ban, Muslim ban’” that the government didn’t bother to turn off, state Attorney General Doug Chin told the judge.
Extending the temporary order until the state’s lawsuit was resolved would ensure the constitutional rights of Muslim citizens across the U.S. are protected after “repeated stops and starts of the last two months,” the state has said.
The government says the ban falls within the president’s power to protect national security. Hawaii has made only generalized concerns about its effect on students and tourism, Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler told the judge via telephone.
The Trump administration had asked Watson to narrow his ruling to cover only the part of Trump’s executive order that suspends new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries. Readler said a freeze on the U.S. refugee program had no effect on Hawaii.
Watson rejected that argument, preventing the administration from halting the flow of refugees.
Watson said in court that the government argued for that narrower interpretation only after a federal judge in Maryland blocked the six-nation travel ban but added that it wasn’t clear whether the refugee suspension was similarly motivated by religious bias.
Watson noted that the government said 20 refugees have been resettled in Hawaii since 2010.
“Is this a mathematical exercise that 20 isn’t enough? … What do I make of that?” the judge asked Readler.
The government attorney replied that 20 is simply a small number of refugees.
“In whose judgment?” Watson asked.
Hawaii was the first state to sue over Trump’s revised ban. The imam of a Honolulu mosque joined the challenge, arguing that the ban would prevent his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting family in Hawaii.
In his arguments, Chin quoted Trump’s comments that the revised travel ban is a “watered-down” version of the original.
“We cannot fault the president for being politically incorrect, but we do fault him for being constitutionally incorrect,” Chin said.
Earlier this month, Watson prevented the federal government from suspending new visas for people from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and freezing the nation’s refugee program. His ruling came just hours before the federal government planned to start enforcing Trump’s executive order.
Trump called Watson’s previous ruling an example of “unprecedented judicial overreach.”
Hawaii’s ruling would not be directly affected by a decision siding with the federal government in the Maryland case, legal experts said. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set a hearing for May 8 to consider the administration’s appeal.
“What a ruling in 4th Circuit in favor of the administration would do is create a split in authority between federal courts in different parts of the country,” said Richard Primus, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan law school.
“Cases with splits in authority are cases the U.S. Supreme Court exists to resolve,” he said.
