Summary: A federal judge has blocked the implementation of the third version of President Trump’s controversial travel ban.
On Tuesday, a federal judge blocked the White House from implementing President Donald Trump’s latest version of his travel ban. According to The Washington Post, this ruling sets up another legal showdown between the Trump administration and various judicial branches over immigration policy.
Tuesday’s decision was made by Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii and is eligible for appeal. Until then, the ruling means that Trump cannot restrict the entry of travelers from six of the eight countries that the White House said would not provide enough information to properly vet them.
This is the third version of Trump’s travel ban. The first was introduced earlier this year but was struck down by courts because of its broadness. Critics of the ban called it a “Muslim ban” because it restricted the travel of people from Muslim-majority countries, even if they had visas.
The second draft was permitted to go forward by the Supreme Court in March, but it was only for 90 days. This travel ban blocked visitors from Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen unless they could prove they had relations with the United States. For example, travelers needed to prove that they were students at an American university or had immediate family living in the country.
Trump’s third travel ban was expected to go into effect on Wednesday, but Judge Watson’s order stopped it.
The latest ban attempted to block visitors from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. Watson ruled that only travelers from North Korea and Venezuela could legally be stopped. He said that like the first travel ban, this ban “lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.’”
Watson added that the travel ban discriminates based on nationality, and the White House said that Watson’s thinking was “dangerously flawed.” Trump has repeatedly defended his travel bans, saying they were necessary to protect the country from terrorists.
“These restrictions are vital to ensuring that foreign nations comply with the minimum security standards required for the integrity of our immigration system and the security of our Nation,” the White House said. “We are therefore confident that the Judiciary will ultimately uphold the President’s lawful and necessary action and swiftly restore its vital protections for the safety of the American people.”
Department of Justice spokesperson Ian Prior said that the department would file an appeal quickly and that the ban was necessary for “national security,” a sentiment repeated by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
“The entry restrictions in the proclamation apply to countries based on their inability or unwillingness to share critical information necessary to safely vet applications, as well as a threat assessment related to terrorism, instability, and other grave national security concerns,” Sanders said in a statement.
Opponents of Trump’s travel ban, however, claimed that Watson’s ruling was a “victory” and that Trump’s ban was “unconstitutional.”
“We’re glad, but not surprised, that President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional Muslim ban has been blocked once again,” Omar Jadwat of the ACLU told The Washington Post.
- Trump’s Travel Ban To Be Replaced by Country-Specific Restrictions
- Travel Ban Slated to Begin
- Supreme Court Allows Portions of Trump’s Travel Ban to Be Enforced
- New York City’s Online Directory of Immigration Law Firms