U.S. judge allows Hawaii to challenge Trump's new travel ban

By Mica Rosenberg and Dan Levine

REUTERS

 

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with U.S. House Deputy Whip team at the East room of the White House in Washington, U.S. March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

(Reuters) - The state of Hawaii can sue over President Donald Trump's new executive order temporarily banning the entry of refugees and travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii said the state could revise its initial lawsuit, which had challenged Trump's original ban signed in January. The state is claiming the revised ban signed by the president on Monday violates the U.S. Constitution. It is the first legal challenge to the revised order.

 

The state of Hawaii will ask the court on Wednesday to put an emergency halt to Trump's new order, according to a court schedule signed by the judge. A hearing is set for March 15, a day before the new ban is to go into effect.

 

The government has said the president has wide authority to implement immigration policy and that the travel rules are necessary to protect against terrorist attacks.

 

Some legal experts have said court challenges will be more difficult now because changes to the order give exemptions to more people.

 

The revised travel order changed and replaced an original, more sweeping ban issued on Jan. 27 that caused chaos and protests at airports and was challenged in more than two dozen lawsuits around the country. A federal judge in Seattle put the first order on hold, in a decision upheld by an appeals court in San Francisco.

 

The new order is much more narrowly tailored. It keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, but excludes Iraq and applies the restriction only to new visa applicants. It also removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria.

 

The order no longer covers legal residents or existing visa holders, and makes waivers possible for some business, diplomatic and other travellers.

 

Immigration advocates have said the new ban, like the original one, discriminates against Muslims.

 

But the first hurdle in a lawsuit is proving "standing" to sue, which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals that a court would rule have a right to sue.

 

STATE CLAIMS HARM

 

Hawaii claims its state universities would be harmed by the order because they would have trouble recruiting students and faculty. It also says the island state's economy would be hit by a decline in tourism. The court papers cite reports that travel to the United States "took a nosedive" after Trump's actions.

 

The state was joined by a new plaintiff named Ismail Elshikh, an American citizen from Egypt who is an Imam at the Muslim Association ofHawaii whose mother-in-law lives in Syria, according to the lawsuit.

 

"This second Executive Order is infected with the same legal problems as the first Order," the state said in court papers filed on Tuesday. The President's order "is subjecting a portion of Hawaii's population, including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his Mosque, to discrimination and second-class treatment," Hawaii said.

 

The lawsuit says that Elshikh fears his mother-in-law will not be able to enter the country under the new order. "The family is devastated," the filing said.

 

One of the groups eligible for waivers under the new ban are those seeking to visit or live with a close relative and who would face hardship if denied entry.

 

Adam Lauridsen, a San Francisco attorney representing students challenging Trump's first order, said the waiver provisions in the new ban are similar to case-by-case exemptions allowed in the first ban. Earlier legal challenges were allowed to move forward despite those waivers, he said.

 

In support of its actions, the Trump administration has cited a section of law that says the president can suspend entry to the United States by "any class" of foreigners if he finds it would be "detrimental to the interests" of the country.

 

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Leslie Adler and Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-03-09

Here we go again! I wonder if a "so called judge" will knock this one back too. That would piss Donald off.

Given the murder rate in America from its own citizens, one has to question why that is not being addressed, while something that seems racially motivated, is a priority?

Maybe Mr. Bannon and his other racist friends should take a look at the crime statistics. Or are they fake?

2 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Here we go again! I wonder if a "so called judge" will knock this one back too. That would piss Donald off.

Given the murder rate in America from its own citizens, one has to question why that is not being addressed, while something that seems racially motivated, is a priority?

Maybe Mr. Bannon and his other racist friends should take a look at the crime statistics. Or are they fake?

His own people have said it has no relevance in preventing terrorism.  But, there is a bill to cut security at airports, shipping ports, and cut the Coast Guard budget to keep out Mexicans.  Go figure how that makes Americans more safe.

1 hour ago, Redline said:

His own people have said it has no relevance in preventing terrorism.  But, there is a bill to cut security at airports, shipping ports, and cut the Coast Guard budget to keep out Mexicans.  Go figure how that makes Americans more safe.

Somebody has to pay for the increased defense budget. You left out the government hiring freeze and possible civil servants layoffs tougher approach to unions sorry the list is endless. Go Donald go drain the swamp. 

He seems stuck on this idea that he has to do everything he promised during his campaign.  Whether that promise was good or not.  He's skipped a few...putting Hillary in jail.  But going after the low hanging fruit.  And failing at it miserable.  Other than allowing the pipeline to be built. 

 

Hawaii probably has a good point.  They are losing money due to this.  Fewer tourists.  Makes sense.

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

He seems stuck on this idea that he has to do everything he promised during his campaign.  Whether that promise was good or not.  He's skipped a few...putting Hillary in jail.  But going after the low hanging fruit.  And failing at it miserable.  Other than allowing the pipeline to be built. 

 

Hawaii probably has a good point.  They are losing money due to this.  Fewer tourists.  Makes sense.

Yes tourism is a sore point everywhere. Its the holy grail here. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/news/articles/tourism-helps-provide-for-hawaiie28099s-economy/

 

Quote

 

Tourism Helps Provide for Hawaii’s Economy

Hawaii’s visitor industry continues to be the largest generator of jobs among the major industry sectors in the state, providing 152,864 jobs in 2010. Through new airlift, marketing and destination experience-based efforts, the number of jobs in 2011 is expected to grow to 159,542—an addition of 6,678 jobs.

Tourism is also the largest source of private capital into the Hawaiian Islands, contributing $11.4 billion in visitor spending and $1 billion in tax revenue last year. The HTA anticipates visitor spending to reach $12.6 billion, with $1.1 billion in tax revenue for 2011, and will work together with the industry to ensure that we continue to build on this positive momentum.

 

 

 

 

Hawaiis attorney general says the new version is fundamentally the same as the first, calling it "Muslim Ban 2.0".

3 hours ago, Redline said:

His own people have said it has no relevance in preventing terrorism.  But, there is a bill to cut security at airports, shipping ports, and cut the Coast Guard budget to keep out Mexicans.  Go figure how that makes Americans more safe.

Now the question seems to be... how muddy can the water get?

 

it reminds me a lot of the old movie "the tail that wagged the dog", which was funny.... therein is the difference (well, it started out funny a couple of months back, but it's getting real now)

Can't believe that Trump would float a second pitch without making sure it was watertight first!  He has very little credibility left after the first fiasco.  He can't be that dumb can he?

3 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Can't believe that Trump would float a second pitch without making sure it was watertight first!  He has very little credibility left after the first fiasco.  He can't be that dumb can he?

Yeah! You just might want to rethink that last question a little bit, and see if you can work out the answer for yourself.

I regret it will hardly be an epiphany, simply reassurance of all you have feared.

10 hours ago, webfact said:

applies the restriction only to new visa applicants.

A little misdirection here as previous visa holders who must renew their visa to remain in the US or re-enter the US will fall under the ban. Thus, eventually the ban will "cleanse" Muslims out of American society.

I'm not looking for "Muslim Ban 2.0" to fare any better than the original. Still, no ban on the countries most responsible for terrorist attacks on the US, and they're still going to have to scale the mountain of comments made pre-election that Trump would ban all Muslims from entering the country. All they have done is applied some lipstick in a transparent attempt to skirt the Constitutional issues that scuttled the first ban...but it's still a pig.

5 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

I'm not looking for "Muslim Ban 2.0" to fare any better than the original. Still, no ban on the countries most responsible for terrorist attacks on the US, and they're still going to have to scale the mountain of comments made pre-election that Trump would ban all Muslims from entering the country. All they have done is applied some lipstick in a transparent attempt to skirt the Constitutional issues that scuttled the first ban...but it's still a pig.

From what I have read, most terrorist acts are committed by home grown terrorists..., so to effectively ban those most responsible, every one would have to leave the US for a day, then come back in, and see if they are readmitted