Federal Judge In Hawaii Freezes Trump's New Travel Ban

March 16, 2017

Washington, Mar 16: A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued a sweeping freeze of President Donald Trump's new executive order hours before it would have temporarily barred the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of new refugees.

newban

In a blistering 43-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson pointed to Trump's own comments and those of his close advisers as evidence that his order was meant to discriminate against Muslims and declared there was a "strong likelihood of success" that those suing would prove the directive violated the Constitution.

Watson declared that "a reasonable, objective observer - enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance - would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion."

He lambasted the government, in particular, for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims.

"The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable," Watson wrote. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed."

At a rally in Nashville, Trump called the ruling "terrible" and asked a cheering crowd whether the ruling was "done by a judge for political reasons." He said the administration would fight the case "as far as it needs to go," including up to the Supreme Court, and rued that he had been persuaded to sign a "watered-down version" of his first travel ban.

"Let me tell you something, I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way," Trump said. "The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear."

Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement: "The Department of Justice strongly disagrees with the federal district court's ruling, which is flawed both in reasoning and in scope. The President's Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation's security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts."

Watson was one of three federal judges to hear arguments Wednesday about the ban, though he was the first to issue an opinion. Federal judges in Washington state and Maryland said they would issue opinions soon.

As the ruling in Hawaii was being handed down, James Robart, the federal judge in Washington state who froze Trump's first travel ban, was hearing arguments about whether he should freeze the second. He said he did not think his first freeze was still in effect, though he did not immediately rule on whether he should issue a new one.

Watson's decision might not be the last word. He was considering only a request for a temporary restraining order, and while that required him to assess whether challengers of the ban would ultimately succeed, his ruling is not final on that question. The Justice Department could appeal the ruling or wage a longer-term court battle before the judge in Hawaii.

Watson's decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Hawaii. Lawyers for the state alleged that the new entry ban, much like the old, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was essentially a Muslim ban, hurt the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damaged the state's robust tourism industry.

They pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, attorneys for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, a Syrian national, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

"Dr. Elshikh certainly has standing in this case. He, along with all of the Muslim residents in Hawaii, face higher hurdles to see family because of religious faith," lawyer Colleen Roh Sinzdak said at a hearing Wednesday. "It is not merely a harm to the Muslim residents of the state of Hawaii, but also is a harm to the United States as a whole and is against the First Amendment itself."

Elshikh is a U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent who has been a resident of Hawaii for over a decade. His wife is of Syrian descent and is also a resident of Hawaii.

Justice Department lawyers argued that Trump was well within his authority to impose the ban, which was necessary for national security, and that those challenging it had raised only speculative harms. "They bear the burden of showing irreparable harm . . . and there is no harm at all," said the acting U.S. solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the government in Greenbelt, Md., in the morning and by phone in Hawaii in the afternoon.

Watson agreed with the state on virtually all the points. He ruled that the state had preliminarily demonstrated its universities and tourism industry would be hurt, and that harm could be traced to the executive order. He wrote that Elshikh had alleged "direct, concrete injuries to both himself and his immediate family."

And Watson declared that the government's assertion of the national security need for the order was "at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims." He pointed to Trump's own campaign trail comments and public statements by advisers as evidence.

"For instance, there is nothing 'veiled' about this press release: 'Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,' " Watson wrote. "Nor is there anything 'secret' about the Executive's motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order. Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: 'When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Watson also pointed to a recent Fox News appearance by Stephen Miller, in which the president's senior policy adviser said the new ban would have "mostly minor technical differences" from the previous iteration frozen by the courts, and Americans would see "the same basic policy outcome for the country."

"These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order's stated secular purpose," Watson wrote.

Opponents of the ban across the country - including those who had argued against it in different cases on Wednesday - hailed Watson's ruling.

Bob Ferguson, the Washington state attorney general who asked Robart to block the measure, called the Hawaii ruling "fantastic news." Justin Cox, a staff attorney for the National Immigration Law Center who argued for a restraining order in the case in Maryland, said, "This is absolutely a victory and should be celebrated as such, especially because the court held that the plaintiffs, that Hawaii was likely to succeed on its establishment clause claim which essentially is that the primary purpose of the executive order is to discriminate against Muslims."

Cox said while the judge did not halt the order entirely, he blocked the crucial sections - those halting the issuance of new visas and suspending the refugee program. Left intact, Cox said, were lesser-known provisions, including one that orders Homeland Security and the U.S. attorney general to publicize information about foreign nationals charged with terrorism-related offenses and other crimes. He said the provision seems designed to whip up fear of Muslims.

"It's a shaming device that it's really a dehumanizing device," he said. "It perpetuates this myth, this damaging stereotype of Muslims as terrorists."

Trump's new entry ban had suspended the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and halted for 90 days the issuance of new visas to people from six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Syria. It was different from the first entry ban in that it omitted Iraq from the list of affected countries, did not affect current visa or green-card holders and spelled out a robust list of people who might be able to apply for exceptions.

The administration could have defended the first ban in court - though it chose instead to rewrite the president's executive order in such a way that it might be more defensible. The next step might have been to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc, after a three-judge panel with the court upheld the freeze on Trump's ban.

Hawaii is a part of the 9th Circuit, so the legal road could pass through the appeals court there again. Perhaps previewing the contentious fight ahead, five of the circuit's judges on Wednesday signed a dissenting opinion in the case over the original travel ban, declaring Trump's decision to issue the executive order was "well within the powers of the presidency." The judges wanted to wipe out a ruling by a three-judge panel declaring otherwise.

"Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated," Judge Jay S. Bybee wrote for the dissenters. "We are judges, not Platonic Guardians. It is our duty to say what the law is, and the meta-source of our law, the U.S. Constitution, commits the power to make foreign policy, including the decisions to permit or forbid entry into the United States, to the President and Congress."

The dissent was signed by Judges Bybee, Sandra Ikuta, Consuelo Callahan and Carlos Bea, who all were appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge Alex Kozinski, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. It seemed to represent a minority view. The circuit has 25 active judges, and the court said a majority had not voted in favor of reconsidering the three-judge panel's published opinion to keep Trump's first ban frozen.

That opinion was signed by Judges Michelle Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama; Richard Clifton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge William Canby Jr. and Judge Stephen Reinhardt formally joined their opinion Wednesday and remarked that only a "small number" of 9th Circuit judges wanted to overturn it.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 16,2024

indiacanada.jpg

Ottawa, Mar 16: An Indian-origin couple and their teenage daughter were killed in a "suspicious" fire which tore through their home last week in Canada's Ontario province, police said on Friday.

A fire engulfed a home at the Big Sky Way and Van Kirk Drive area of Brampton on March 7, a press release by the Peel Police said.

After the blaze was put out, investigators located what was believed to be human remains within the gutted house, but the number of people killed couldn't be ascertained at the time.

The charred remains were on Friday identified as those of three family members: 51-year-old Rajiv Warikoo; his wife, 47-year-old Shilpa Kotha; and their 16-year-old daughter, Mahek Warikoo.

Police said that they resided at the address before the fire.

Peel police Constable Taryn Young on Friday said the fire had been deemed suspicious, the CTV news channel reported.

"At this time, we are investigating this with our homicide bureau, and we are deeming this as suspicious as the Ontario Fire Marshal has deemed that this fire was not accidental," the report quoted Young as saying.

"There's not much left to it," Young said when asked about the possible cause of the fire.

"Looking into something like that as a fire marshal, I'm sure it's very tough when there is not much left to look at. But we are exhausting all avenues," she said.

The deceased family's neighbour, Kenneth Yousaf, said that the family had lived on the street for about 15 years, and he never noticed any problems with them.

Yousaf said he was alerted to the fire last week by a family member, who heard a big "bang." "When we came out, the house was on fire. So sad. Within a few hours, everything was down to the ground," the report quoted Yousaf as saying.

In a press release, police said they are continuing to investigate the deaths of the three family members and urged anyone with information to come forward.

"The circumstances surrounding the house fire remains the focus of an active investigation, and anyone with information or video footage (dashcam or otherwise) is urged to contact Homicide detectives," police said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 28,2024

russiaattack.jpg

Russia says it is "extremely hard to believe" that Daesh could have staged the recent hugely deadly attack on a Moscow concert hall that the country's intelligence and security officials have blamed on Ukraine and its Western backers.

Four gunmen burst into the Russian capital's Crocus City Hall on Friday and began shooting at the people, who were attending an event. The Takfiri terrorist group has allegedly claimed responsibility for the massacre that killed at least 143.

Speaking on Wednesday, however, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova cast that claim into serious doubt.

"In order to ward off suspicions from the collective West, they urgently needed to come up with something, so they resorted to ISIS (Daesh), pulled an ace out of their sleeve, and literally a few hours after the terrorist attack, the Anglo-Saxon media began disseminating precisely these versions," she said.

The chief of the Russian internal intelligence (FSB), Alexander Bortnikov has suggested that not only Ukraine, but also the United States and Britain might have been behind the shooting.

The Russian Federal Security Service has also said the gunmen planned to travel to Ukraine, where they were to be welcomed as "heroes." The FSB said Western intelligence services aided the attackers.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also suggested that Ukraine stood to derive benefit from the attack and that Kiev might have played a role.

He has said that someone on the Ukrainian side had prepared a "window" for the gunmen to escape across the border before they were captured in western Russia on Friday night.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 18,2024

putin.jpg

Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed a landslide victory in the just-concluded presidential polls, securing him a fifth term in power. While Putin hailed the results as an indication of "trust" and "hope" in him, critics panned the polls for its preordained nature.

As early results poured in, Putin won 87.8% of the vote, the highest-ever result in Russia's post-Soviet history, Reuters quoted Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) exit polls. The Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VCIOM) put Putin on 87%. 

If he completes the term, the 71-year-old President will also script history as Russia's longest-serving leader for more than 200 years, overtaking Josef Stalin. 

While Communist candidate Nikolai Kharitonov finished second with just under 4%, newcomer Vladislav Davankov third, and ultra-nationalist Leonid Slutsky fourth, partial results suggested.

In his victory speech, Putin said he would prioritise resolving tasks associated with Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine and would strengthen the Russian military. 

"We have many tasks ahead. But when we are consolidated - no matter who wants to intimidate us, suppress us - nobody has ever succeeded in history, they have not succeeded now, and they will not succeed ever in the future," said Putin. He was welcomed by his supporters to the stage with "Putin Putin" chants. He also hailed the results as an indication of "trust" and "hope" in him.

Later, while interacting with reporters, Putin also warned the West that a direct conflict between Russia and the U.S.-led NATO military alliance would mean the planet was one step away from World War Three but said hardly anyone wanted such a scenario. "It is clear to everyone, that this will be one step away from a full-scale World War Three. I think hardly anyone is interested in this," Putin told reporters after winning the biggest-ever landslide in post-Soviet Russian history.

Meanwhile, the Western world condemned the elections, stating the polls were neither free nor fair. While Germany called it a "pseudo-election" under an authoritarian ruler reliant on censorship, repression and violence, UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron condemned "the illegal holding of elections on Ukrainian territory".

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said, "The Russian dictator is simulating another election".

Earlier during the elections, heeding an opposition call to protest, hundreds of  Russians crowded outside polling stations at noon Sunday, on the last day of the elections. The associates of Alexei Navalny, the critic of Putin who died earlier this month in an Arctic prison, had urged people who were unhappy with Putin or the war in Ukraine to go to the polls at noon on Sunday. Many turned up and lines outside a number of polling stations both inside Russia and at its embassies around the world appeared to swell at that time.

Among those heeding the call was Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny's widow, who joined a long line in Berlin. She later told reporters that she cast her vote and wrote her late husband's name on the ballot.  Asked whether she had a message for Putin, Navalnaya replied: "Please stop asking for messages from me or from somebody for Mr. Putin. There could be no negotiations and nothing with Mr. Putin, because he's a killer, he's a gangster."

One woman in Moscow, who said her name was Yulia, told the AP that she was voting for the first time. "Even if my vote doesn't change anything, my conscience will be clear ... for the future that I want to see for our country," she said. Like others, she didn't give her full name because of security concerns.

Another Moscow voter, who also identified himself only by his first name, Vadim, said he hoped for change, but added that "unfortunately, it's unlikely".

More acts of rebellion were reported on Saturday too. Cases were filed against at least 15 people for pouring dye in ballot boxes, started fires or lobbing Molotov cocktails at polling stations. Ella Pamfilova, the head of Russia’s CEC, said 29 polling stations across 20 regions in Russia were targeted, including eight arson attempts.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.