HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii is taking its lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s travel ban to the next level by asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction.
HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii is taking its lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s travel ban to the next level by asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order halting key portions of Trump’s revised executive order, which would restrict immigration by refugees and from six majority-Muslim countries, before it went into effect last week. Now, attorneys representing Hawaii want Watson to turn the temporary order into a preliminary injunction.
In a motion filed Tuesday, Hawaii argues that Watson should issue an injunction for the same reasons he issued a temporary restraining order. Hawaii argues the travel ban inflicts “state-sanction discrimination toward Muslims” in violation of the Constitution.
Watson gave the government until Friday to respond to Hawaii’s motion. He set a hearing for March 29.
The government is appealing a ruling from a federal judge in Maryland that also blocked the ban from taking effect.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia is weighing a request from a Muslim civil rights group also asking for an even broader injunction against the travel ban.
Lawyers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked a judge in Alexandria, Va., on Tuesday to issue an injunction against the entire executive order. Attorney Gadeir Abbas said Section 3 of the order, which affects how visa applicants can seek waivers, remains in force and should be blocked as well.
As a whole, he said, the purpose of the executive order “is a bare and base desire to disfavor Islam and disfavor Muslims.” As long as any part of it remains in effect, Muslims are improperly stigmatized in violation of First Amendment protections for religious freedom, he argued.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler, who previously served as an attorney for the Trump campaign, acknowledged that provisions of Section 3 are being “built in” to the current process for reviewing visa applications, but said they have no practical effect on how the government issues visas.
“The process is proceeding as normal,” he said.
Judge Anthony Trenga questioned whether Section 3 was in force at all — one reading of the order is that Section 3 merely allows individuals to seek waivers if they were denied a visa under Section 2, which was placed on hold by the judges in Maryland and Hawaii.
But Abbas said the order gives new, stricter guidance to Customs and Border Protection agents that they should deny entry to the U.S. unless an applicant can prove, to the agent’s satisfaction, that the denial would create an undue hardship for the would-be traveler, among other conditions.
Trenga questioned throughout the hearing whether there remains a need for him to issue a preliminary injunction, given the actions already taken by the Hawaii and Maryland judges. Abbas argued that an injunction might be needed if the other judges’ orders are rescinded or reversed.