US asks Hawaii judge to clarify ruling on Trump travel ban
HONOLULU — The government is asking a federal judge to clarify his order blocking President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, arguing it shouldn’t apply to a global freeze on refugees entering the United States.
A Justice Department motion filed Friday asks U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to clarify that the temporary restraining order only applies to the president’s temporary ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.
Watson issued a 43-page ruling on Wednesday after Hawaii requested he block enforcement of Trump’s executive order, which the government calls a national security measure and critics call an unconstitutional and bigoted attempt to bar Muslims from entering the country.
Watson’s ruling concluded there was “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” behind the travel ban, including the president’s own campaign comments regarding Muslims.
He said Hawaii would suffer financially if the executive order constricted the flow of students and tourists to the state.
In seeking clarification, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit “failed to meaningfully challenge” another section of Trump’s order that bars refugees from traveling to the United States for 120 days and caps the number that will be allowed into the U.S. this fiscal year at 50,000 — a drop of nearly half.
The cap “draws no distinction whatsoever on the basis of religion,” government lawyers argued in a filing.
Opponents have 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.
The Justice Department also argued that the Hawaii ruling shouldn’t block Trump’s order that security officials review whether other countries are providing enough information to ensure would-be immigrants aren’t a security threat.
Hawaii believes that the court’s order applies to the sections of the executive order mentioned by the government lawyers, said Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii’s attorney general.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.