You have to read this Hawaii judge’s Donald Trump smack-down

President’s latest immigration ban has been temporarily blocked

A federal judge in Hawaii has temporarily frozen Donald Trump’s latest travel ban, and the judgment is pretty brutal.

Embedded in full below, Derrick K. Watson’s 43-page judgment concludes by imposing a “temporary restraining order” on the President’s executive order, which sought to suspend the admission of new refugees into the United States of America. The order also halted the issuance of new visas to citizens from six mostly Muslim countries.

This newest order was different in a number of ways to the first travel ban made by Trump (which too was duly halted by a number of courts). For starters, it impacted citizens from six countries instead of seven (Iraq was knocked off the list) and did not apply to current visa holders.

But that didn’t stop Watson blocking the ban and, to reach his conclusion, he dragged out previous anti-Muslim comments made by the Republican businessman.

For example, at page 33 of his scathing opinion, Watson quoted Trump as saying, “I think Islam hates us,” in a March 2016 interview. The judge — who was nominated to sit on the bench by President Barack Obama — continued:

Mr Trump was asked, ‘Is there a war between the West and radical Islam, or between the West and Islam itself?’ He replied: ‘It’s very hard to separate. Because you don’t know who’s who.’

Over the page, Watson laid into Trump even more when he slapped down his legal team’s warning against looking into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decision-makers. He said:

[T]here is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.’

Ouch!

Read the full judgment in all its glory here:

For all the latest news, features, events and jobs, sign up to Legal Cheek’s weekly newsletter here.

17 Comments

Asking for a Friend

What’s ‘bad’ about it and why is it a ‘sad’ day for ‘the World’?
May I suggest less hyperbole and a bit more analysis?

(1)(3)
Reply Report comment
Just Anonymous

I don’t see why Trump’s words (or even intentions) are relevant here.

The issue is surely a very narrow one: does the actual text of the Order violate the US Constitution?

Even if Trump does actually want to ban all Muslims entering the US, that (hypothetical) fact is completely irrelevant if the actual Order, on an objective construction, does not do that.

As for whether the actual Order does violate the Constitution, on that issue I must admit complete ignorance.

(27)(7)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Exactly. In this country they wrongly accuse judges of “judicial activism”, in America this is what it looks like when they actually do that.

The matter before the court was legal, while the judgment was political.

(20)(6)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Did you actually read the judgment? This has nothing to do with judicial activism. The judge carefully cited authority for each proposition of law, including the proposition that context-setting statements by the president and other lawmakers are relevant to the question of the motivation behind the order. That motivation itself was relevant was also supported by authority. You may not see why words and intentions are relevant, but if you read the judgement it is literally right there: the ‘narrow’ question of whether the order is unconstitutional falls to be determined by the Lemon test which takes into account motivation and animus. 0/5 for originality.

(13)(16)
Reply Report comment
Just Anonymous

I have read the judgment. But since (as I admitted) I know nothing about the US jurisdiction, I can hardly form a meaningful view on whether the judge’s analysis was actually correct.

All I can say is that if US law really does require the judge to take into account such matters in the way that he did, then that law is wrong.

(13)(6)
Reply Report comment
Just Anonymous

Nice try. But personal attacks combined with an argument from incredulity don’t work.

Why don’t you try again with a rational argument this time.

(14)(2)
Reply Report comment
Amused Reader

Great judgement, justice has been served. Donald Trump simply seeks to veil his hatred for Muslims, in a legal way. It seems like he only likes the Muslims that make him money.

(12)(7)
Reply Report comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.