District Court Judge Anthony Trenga's finding that the ban is justified is in direct opposition to rulings in similar cases in Hawaii and Maryland which called the order discriminatory.
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday upheld President Trump's revised travel ban, delivering a small victory to the Trump administration as it seeks to strengthen its legal case for the executive order that has been blocked in other courts. The first version of the travel ban was the subject of negative rulings in federal court last month, most recently in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle, Washington.
Critics said the new ban remains legally flawed.
The second ban looks similar to the first - it's aimed at keeping people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the USA for 90 days.
The Trump administration argued that the revised executive order was meant to protect the United States from terrorism.
"The substantive revisions reflected in EO-2 have reduced the probative value of the President's statements to the point that it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate goal of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that objective", Trenga added.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said her agency was pleased with ruling.
Michael Porter Jr. will ask for release from commitment to UW
It's hard because each phone call is about 45, 50 minutes from parents. I plan to get that (release) and reopen my options. On Wednesday, Porter Jr. mentioned these fellows.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer applauded the decision, as did the US Department of Justice. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
But Trenga said only the order itself should be up for review by the courts - not the president's past comments.
Judges in Maryland and Hawaii wrote that Trump's order didn't seem to be in response to any specific threat.
US District Judge Derrick Watson's ruling last week resulted in a temporary restraining order nationwide - hours before the revised travel ban was set to go into effect.
"The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable", Watson wrote in his ruling.
"The substantive revisions reflected in EO-2 have reduced the probative value of the President's statements to the point that it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate goal of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that objective", Trenga added. Even a small fraction of the 31% who supported the travel ban agreed with the majority that "it might have a negative effect" on the sector.