A federal district court in Hawaii has yet again blocked the travel ban that was placed by President Trump on the eight countries from taking place.
Like yesterday's ruling against the travel ban by a federal district court in Hawaii, Judge Chuang also ruled that Travel Ban 3.0 violated the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which forbids discrimination in the issuance of immigration visas on the basis of nationality.
The White House is blasting a federal judge's decision to block the Trump administration from enforcing the latest version its travel ban, calling the order "dangerously flawed". It continues the ban on immigration from five of the six countries in the previous ban: Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, and adds three new countries to the list: Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. Critics said that while North Korea and Venezuela are not predominantly Muslim, the ban would affect very few travelers from there, and their inclusion on the list may have been created to avoid discrimination allegations. The six remaining countries are mainly Muslim.
The decision from Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii is sure to be appealed, but for now, it means that the administration can not restrict the entry of travelers from six of the eight countries that officials said were either unable or unwilling to provide information that the United States wanted to vet their citizens.
The Trump Administration had said on Monday that it would pursue a quick appeal of the Hawaii order, and is thus expected to do so to challenge the Maryland order. The Hawaii ruling came in a case brought by that state, while the Maryland ruling came in cases brought by relatives of travelers who would be blocked; the International Refugee Assistance Project; and organizations that invite scholars and others from the affected countries to participate in conferences. The Justices said that the president could not exclude those with family or organizational ties to persons or entities in the U.S. His ruling said the latest version discriminates based on nationality. Then on the last day of the Supreme Court session, the Court decided that the administration would be able to ban anyone covered by the order who lacked a "bona fide relationship" to the U.S. - which, in practice, meant extended family members, tourists, and most refugees. First, in March, it was his issuance of a temporary restraining order, at the behest of a coalition of Hawaiian government officials and local Muslim activists represented by a Hogan Lovells legal team led by Obama Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, that put the second iteration of the travel ban on hold.
Central Intelligence Agency bomb sniffing puppy retires after losing interest in searching for explosives
The CIA offers handlers and their families the opportunity to adopt dogs that are dropped from the program or are retired. Being a bomb-sniffing dog for the Central Intelligence Agency is a big job, and Lulu just wasn't up for it.
The policy had evolved out of Mr Trump's call in late 2015 for foreign Muslims to be barred from entering the US.
The two appeals courts that halted parts of the second ban focused on comments by Trump and his surrogates during last year's campaign.
Judge Derrick Watson began his opinion with a comparison of the federal government to professional athletes-an odd juxtaposition at a time when the president has picked a fight with black athletes protesting the treatment of people of color by the criminal justice system. "And so it goes with EO-3".
By dismissing the writ of certiorari as "improvidently granted" in IRAP v. Trump, the Supreme Court could have removed the case from their docket while leaving lower court decisions undisturbed. Trump's third travel ban must stand.