Travel ban restrained by federal judge

On October 17, 2017, a federal judge in Hawaii postponed President Trump’s travel ban just before it would have taken effect. The ban will, therefore, be suspended for now, rather than taking effect on October 18th as it was intended to.

The ban would have barred access to the country for residents of eight nations: Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. The restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela have not been affected by the ruling issued on October 17th. One key difference between this ban and previous executive orders is that this one would have remained intact indefinitely, with no timeframe set forth to begin allowing free immigration from these countries to resume.

Summary of the ruling

In his ruling, Judge Derrick Watson cited several issues to justify his decision. For one, he believes the ban is overly broad and violates principles set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prevents discrimination based on nationality. He added that the ban also goes against the principles America was founded upon. In addition, a lack of evidence exists that this ban would indeed have a positive impact on the United States, according to Judge Watson. Just as the ban that preceded it, it fails to define the ways in which the presence of immigrants from these countries would be a detriment to the nation.

Several parties are responsible for requesting the temporary restraining order on the ban. They are the plaintiffs in this case. Among them is the state of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, and two individuals who apparently wish to remain anonymous referred to only as “John Doe 1” and “John Doe 2”. The plaintiffs allege that they have family members who, under the ban, would not be able to travel to the United States. The Muslim Association of Hawaii operates several mosques within the islands and has members from five of the affected countries.

Previous travel bans are referred to as “EO1” and “EO2”, “EO” standing for the executive order. The ruling summarizes the courts’ previous decisions regarding these previous orders. In short, a federal district court granted a temporary restraining order on EO1, while EO2 was also restrained except for people without a clear reason to be entering the United States.

Big picture remains unclear

According to CNN, the Supreme Court has been holding back on addressing the travel ban issue for the time being. They want the lower courts to issue rulings on the matter first. This leaves it up in the air as to whether or not the larger issues at hand will be addressed by the nation’s highest court in the near future. What remains to be determined is the extent to which the President has the authority to issue such sweeping travel restrictions.

The full text of the ruling can be found here.

If you have any questions regarding these executive orders, the recent rulings, and what they might mean for the future, feel free to contact us.