The post More than 700 anti-Trump protests planned across all 50 states first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The injunction blocks the new travel restrictions for six of the eight countries — all except for those affecting nationals of North Korea and Venezuela, which were not at issue in the suit filed by the state of Hawaii and other plaintiffs.

President Trump’s previous two versions of travel bans were blocked by various federal courts before the Supreme Court permitted a modified version of the second to go into effect. In issuing a nationwide order blocking implementation of the third ban, Judge Derrick K. Watson of the District Court of Hawaii found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that Trump overstepped his authority in issuing the new proclamation restricting travel, which, he wrote, “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.” Watson wrote that the executive order “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.’” Further, Judge Watson found that the order “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the Ninth Circuit [Court of Appeals] has found antithetical to both Section 1152(a) [of the Immigration and Nationality Act] and the founding principles of this nation.”

The White House said in a statement that the restraining order “undercuts the president’s efforts to keep the American people safe and enforce minimum security standards for entry into the United States.”

“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,” the White House said. “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. 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.”

Opponents of Trump’s actions say he is using national security as a pretext for banning Muslims from entering the U.S., a step the president called for during the campaign (the original travel bans exclusively affected Muslim-majority countries, though two countries whose citizens are not largely Muslim, North Korea and Venezuela, were added to the latest one). Universities and higher education groups have been among those who have criticized Trump’s various travel bans, which they argue will deter talented students and scholars from coming to U.S. campuses.

In finding that the state of Hawaii had standing to sue, Judge Watson specifically cited harm to the University of Hawaii. “The university has 20 students from the eight countries designated in EO-3 [the third executive order], and has already received five new graduate applications from students in those countries for the spring 2018 term,” Judge Watson wrote in his Tuesday order.

“It also has multiple faculty members and scholars from the designated countries and uncertainty regarding the entry ban ‘threatens the university’s recruitment, educational programming and educational mission,’” Judge Watson wrote, quoting from a declaration from a university administrator. “Indeed, in September 2017, a Syrian journalist scheduled to speak at the university was denied a visa and did not attend a planned lecture, another lecture series planned for November 2017 involving a Syrian national can no longer go forward, and another Syrian journalist offered a scholarship will not likely be able to attend the university if EO-3 is implemented.”

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/10/18/federal-judge-blocks-third-trump-travel-ban

The post Federal Judge Blocks Third Trump Travel Ban first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled late Tuesday that the travel ban continues to have the same problems, and violate the same constitutional principles, as previous versions of the ban. Despite tweaks made by the administration, Chuang ruled that it still constituted a “Muslim ban” that violates the Constitution’s protections against religious discrimination.

Earlier in the day in Hawaii, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson struck down the ban on different grounds, arguing it violates a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on nationality. Watson said Trump overstepped his legal authority by banning 150 million people from countries targeted in the ban, and that the law does not give him “unbridled discretion to do as he pleases.”

The two rulings combined provide opponents of the ban with multiple legal attacks as the cases make their way through the appeals process.

“They demonstrate the breathe of legal problems that the administration is facing as it tries again and again to impose the ban,” said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU attorney involved in the Maryland case. “They really undermine how any way you look at it, they lose.”

The White House insists that will not be the case. Both judges who ruled Tuesday were appointed by former president Barack Obama. And for all the legal wrangling over the travel ban during the past nine months, the Supreme Court has not yet fully weighed in.

When it does, the high court will have Trump’s nominee — Justice Neil Gorsuch — on the bench, meaning the more conservative court could end up saving the travel ban for Trump.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that she was, “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.”

At issue is Trump’s third attempt to implement a travel ban set to begin Wednesday. The ban would block specific travelers from five of the original nations cited in Trump’s first ban issued in January — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — along with Chad, North Korea and Venezuela.

Iraq and Sudan were subtracted from the list in March and September, respectively.

Watson, issuing a nationwide block against the travel ban, said the measure was “simultaneously overbroad and underinclusive” because it targets entire countries rather than dangerous individuals. Watson ruled the new ban fails to show that nationality alone makes a person a greater security risk to the U.S.

“The categorical restrictions on entire populations of men, women and children, based upon nationality, are a poor fit for the issues regarding the sharing of ‘public-safety and terrorism-related information’ that the president identifies,” Watson wrote.

Watson’s ruling affects only the six majority-Muslim countries and does not include North Korea and Venezuela. But few people are affected by the ban in those countries.

More: Federal judge in Hawaii blocks Trump’s third travel ban

More: New travel ban adds North Korea, Venezuela

More: In victory for Trump, Supreme Court dismisses travel ban case

Chuang, in his ruling a few hours later, said the president’s own words make clear the focus is not on national security but on instituting a ban against Muslims. The judge said the administration had “not shown that national security cannot be maintained without an unprecedented eight-country travel ban.”

Chuang’s ruling was more limited. It prohibits the administration from enforcing the ban against people who can prove they have a “bona fide” — or good faith — relationship with U.S. persons or entities, such as businesses or universities.

In using that wording, the judge followed guidance from the Supreme Court over the summer, when it allowed the Trump administration to implement a scaled-back version of an earlier travel ban. The court dismissed that case after Trump issued the latest version.

The Trump administration continues defending the ban, arguing that a president has broad authority to restrict immigration in the name of national security.

The administration points to a section of federal law that allows a president to bar admission to “any aliens or of any class of alien” that he declares are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” And it says the latest version of the travel ban is a carefully constructed measure implemented after a thorough review by the departments of Homeland Security, State, Defense and Justice.

The Justice Department has said it will appeal Watson’s ruling.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/10/18/federal-judge-maryland-rules-trumps-new-travel-ban-violates-law-against-discrimination/775106001/

The post Federal judge in Maryland delivers second blow against Trump’s new travel ban first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.