A federal judge in Hawaii is questioning attorneys for the Trump administration about their argument that suspending the nation's refugee program has no effect on the state.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted Wednesday in a hearing that the government says 20 refugees were resettled in Hawaii since 2010. He asked: "Is this a mathematical exercise that 20 isn't enough? ... What do I make of that?"

Watson is hearing arguments on whether to extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until Hawaii's lawsuit is resolved.

Government attorneys are urging a federal judge in Hawaii to be guided by narrower rulings blocking just one subsection of Trump's travel ban.

Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler, participating in a Honolulu hearing by telephone Wednesday, says Hawaii has only made generalized concerns about effects to students and tourism. He says suspending the refugee program has no impact on Hawaii.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted earlier that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

That judge said it wasn't clear that the suspension of the refugee program was similarly motivated by religious bias.

Hawaii's attorney general is quoting President Donald Trump's comments that the revised travel ban is a "watered down" version of the first one.

In arguments Wednesday, Attorney General Douglas Chin is urging a federal judge not to narrow his order blocking the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and suspension of the nation's refugee program.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson notes that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the six-nation ban.

A hearing has started in federal court in Hawaii on whether a judge should extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until the state's lawsuit is resolved.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson is listening to arguments Wednesday. Even if he doesn't issue a longer-lasting hold on the ban, his temporary block would stay in place until he rules otherwise.

The state says the policy discriminates against Muslims, while the government says it falls within the president's power to protect national security.

This month, Watson prevented the federal government from suspending new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and freezing the nation's refugee program.

A hearing in Honolulu is set for Wednesday. But even if U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson doesn't put the ban on hold until the state's lawsuit is resolved, his temporary block would remain until he rules otherwise. </s> A Hawaii-based federal judge on Wednesday extended an order that blocks implementation of President Trump’s revised executive order on travel and refugees.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson declined to narrow the scope of his prior ruling to block only the travel portion of the order, writing in his 24-page order that “it makes little sense to do so.” His order converts a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, which will block the Trump administration from enforcing the travel ban as the lawsuit while the court considers the merits of the case.

The Justice Department had hoped to convince the judge not to extend his order, which since March 15 has prevented the administration from enforcing portion’s of the revised order that temporarily ban travel of foreign nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to the United States, temporarily block all refugee resettlement in the U.S. and lower the cap on the number of refugees to be allowed into the United States this year from 110,000 people to 50,000 people.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said the policy discriminates against Muslims and hurts the state’s economy. The implied message in the revised ban is like a “neon sign flashing ‘Muslim Ban, Muslim Ban”’ that the government didn’t bother to turn off, he said.

The Justice Department had also put forth an alternate option, urging the judge to limit the scope of his order so that the refugee restrictions of the order could take effect. The DOJ argued that Hawaii had not provided adequate evidence that they are harmed by that part of the executive order.

In briefs submitted last week, the Justice Department argued that most of the State of Hawaii’s arguments against the order were focused on the harms the travel restrictions would cause the state’s economy or tourism industry, with little attention paid to the effects of the refugee restrictions. They cited statistics from the State Department’s Refugee Admissions Office that showed since 2010 that just 20 out of more than 530,000 refugees settled in the United States since 2010 were brought to Hawaii for resettlement.

But Judge Watson’s wrote that his preliminary injunction will apply to both section 2 and section 6 of the Trump administration’s order which related to the temporary travel and refugee bans “because the entirety of the Executive Order runs afoul of the Establishment Clause.”

“Put another way, the historical context and evidence relied on by the Court, highlighted by the comments of the Executive and his surrogates, does not parse between Section 2 and Section 6, nor does it do so between subsections within Section 2,” Judge Watson wrote. “Accordingly, there is no basis to narrow the Court’s ruling in the manner requested by the Federal Defendants.”
• This article is based in part on wire service reports. </s> HONOLULU (AP) - The Latest on a hearing in federal court in Hawaii on President Donald Trump's travel ban (all times local):

A federal judge in Hawaii is questioning attorneys for the Trump administration about their argument that suspending the nation's refugee program has no effect on the state.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted Wednesday in a hearing that the government says 20 refugees were resettled in Hawaii since 2010. He asked: "Is this a mathematical exercise that 20 isn't enough? ... What do I make of that?"

Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler replied that 20 is a small number. Watson countered, "In whose judgment?"

Watson is hearing arguments on whether to extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until Hawaii's lawsuit is resolved.

Government attorneys are urging a federal judge in Hawaii to be guided by narrower rulings blocking just one subsection of Trump's travel ban.

Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler, participating in a Honolulu hearing by telephone Wednesday, says Hawaii has only made generalized concerns about effects to students and tourism. He says suspending the refugee program has no impact on Hawaii.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted earlier that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

That judge said it wasn't clear that the suspension of the refugee program was similarly motivated by religious bias.

Hawaii's attorney general is quoting President Donald Trump's comments that the revised travel ban is a "watered down" version of the first one.

In arguments Wednesday, Attorney General Douglas Chin is urging a federal judge not to narrow his order blocking the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and suspension of the nation's refugee program.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson notes that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the six-nation ban.

Watson says "it came immediately on the heels of Judge Chuang's decision."

A hearing has started in federal court in Hawaii on whether a judge should extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until the state's lawsuit is resolved.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson is listening to arguments Wednesday. Even if he doesn't issue a longer-lasting hold on the ban, his temporary block would stay in place until he rules otherwise.

Legal experts say it's unlikely Watson would side with the Trump administration.

The state says the policy discriminates against Muslims, while the government says it falls within the president's power to protect national security.

This month, Watson prevented the federal government from suspending new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and freezing the nation's refugee program.

A federal judge in Hawaii is hearing arguments on whether to extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

A hearing in Honolulu is set for Wednesday. But even if U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson doesn't put the ban on hold until the state's lawsuit is resolved, his temporary block would remain until he rules otherwise.

Legal experts say it's unlikely Watson would side with the Trump administration.

Government attorneys say that if the judge issues a longer-lasting hold, he should narrow his ruling to cover only the part of the ban that suspends new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

They say the lawsuit doesn't show how Hawaii would be harmed by other sections of the ban, including suspending the nation's refugee program.

Watson also prevented that section from taking effect two weeks ago. </s> Government attorneys appealed Thursday, March 30th to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It comes the day after U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued a longer-lasting hold on key provisions of Trump’s executive order.

The government says in court documents that the appeal also applies to a temporary order that Watson previously issued that halted the suspension of new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and a freeze on the U.S. refugee program.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin says he expected the government to appeal.

Watson’s written order says he won’t suspend the ruling for an appeal. </s> HONOLULU (CN) — The state of Hawaii is again urging a federal judge to clarify his block of President Trump’s travel ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in March stalled enforcement of the travel ban – which restricted immigration from six Muslim-majority nations – but he declined to clarify his ruling last week. He said that the matter turned on the Supreme Court’s use of the term “close family” in a preliminary ruling two weeks ago to determine who should be eligible to enter the country now that the high court has issued a temporary stay on enforcing certain portions of the travel ban block.

Upon appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Judge Watson may indeed enforce or modify his own injunction.

Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg disagreed, arguing in court documents filed in the District of Hawaii Tuesday that the court lacks enforcement or modification authority. Rosenberg also elaborated on the Trump administration’s definition of “close family,” leaning on a formulation in the Immigration and Nationality Act that focuses on the children, spouses and parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin responded in a brief filed Wednesday that Hawaii is only following the “precise roadmap” laid out by the Ninth Circuit, while “the government tries every possible avenue” to defy the Supreme Court’s directive that anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to this country cannot be denied entry.

Chin continued, “The Government has spent two weeks carrying out its unconstitutional order against the vulnerable and the weak.” Chin’s brief cites a Ukrainian granddaughter attempting to reunite with her 93-year-old grandmother, a refugee stranded in Malawi while his uncle waits for him here, and “countless individuals” promised resettlement by a dedicated refugee organization.

Rosenberg countered that an assurance from a refugee resettlement agency does not constitute a bona fide relationship and that resettlement is contingent upon a contract between the agency and the government. According to Rosenberg, Hawaii’s “blanket approach” to admitting refugees would eviscerate the Supreme Court’s stay.

Rosenberg may be conflating the portion of Watson’s injunction that protects refugees, which the Supreme Court left intact, with the injunction against the 120-day ban on immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, which the Supreme Court overturned.

Rosenberg continued, “Plaintiffs would have the court modify its injunction by adding requirements that, at best, appear nowhere in the Supreme Court’s opinion.”

Chin accused the government of manufacturing ad hoc rules, including its “newly minted rationalization” relying on immigration laws to establish a strict definition of “family.”

Such guidelines, Chin said, would preclude plaintiff Ismael Elshikh’s mother-in-law from coming into the country, for example, even though the Supreme Court ruling granted her protection. “It defies credulity that this is what the Supreme Court had in mind when it mentioned Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law,” Chin wrote. </s> Hawaii’s attorney general says a federal judge’s decision to extend an order blocking President Donald Trump’s travel ban affirms values of religious freedom.

State Attorney General Douglas Chin says Wednesday’s longer-lasting ruling means that Muslims and refugees will face less uncertainty.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson granted Hawaii’s request to extend his previous temporary block of provisions that would suspend new visas for six Muslim-majority countries and halt the nation’s refugee program.

Watson rejected the government’s request to narrow his ruling to apply only to the six-nation ban. Watson is stopping the government from enforcing both provisions until he orders otherwise.

Attorneys for the government didn’t immediately return requests for comment.

Watson issued his 24-page ruling several hours after a hearing on Hawaii’s request. </s> A federal judge in Hawaii who temporarily blocked President Donald Trump 's revised travel ban hours before it was set to take effect issued a longer-lasting order Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson held a hearing Wednesday on Hawaii's request to extend his temporary hold. Several hours later, he issued a 24-page order blocking the government from suspending new visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and halting the U.S. refugee program.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin argued that even though the revised ban has more neutral language, the implied intent is still there. He likened it to a neon sign flashing "Muslim Ban," which the government hasn't bothered to turn off.

Chad Readler, a Department of Justice attorney defending Trump's executive order, told the judge via telephone that Hawaii hasn't shown how it is harmed by various provisions, including one that would suspend the nation's refugee program.

Here's a look at Watson's ruling and what comes next:

This month, Watson prevented the federal government from suspending new visas for people from six countries and freezing the nation's refugee program. The ruling came just hours before the ban was to take effect.

Watson, nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama in 2012, agreed with Hawaii that the ban would hurt the state's tourism-dependent economy and that it discriminates based on nationality and religion.

Trump called the ruling an example of "unprecedented judicial overreach."

The next day, a judge in Maryland also blocked the six-nation travel ban but said it wasn't clear that the suspension of the refugee program was similarly motivated by religious bias.

The federal government appealed the Maryland ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and sought to narrow the Hawaii ruling.

Like his temporary order, Watson's new order notes that Hawaii has shown the state's universities and tourism industry will suffer from the ban. A plaintiff in Hawaii's lawsuit, the imam of a Honolulu mosque, will be harmed if the ban is enforced, Watson said: "These injuries have already occurred and will continue to occur if the Executive Order is implemented and enforced; the injuries are neither contingent nor speculative."

Government attorneys have tried to convince the judge not to consider comments Trump has made about the travel ban. "The court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed, and pretend it has not seen what it has," Watson wrote.

Watson also refused to narrow his ruling to only apply to the six-nation ban, as the government requested.

The ruling won't be suspended if the government appeals, Watson said.

"Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this court," he wrote.

Watson's ruling allows Hawaii's lawsuit challenging the ban to work its way through the courts.

"While we understand that the President may appeal, we believe the court's well-reasoned decision will be affirmed," the Hawaii attorney general's office said in a statement.

Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque who joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff, argues that he's harmed by Trump's order because it prevents his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting family in the U.S. It's not clear how Watson's ruling will affect the mother-in-law's ability to obtain a visa.

The Department of Justice didn't immediately comment after Watson issued his decision.

The Department of Justice opposed Hawaii's request to extend Watson's temporary order. But the department said that if the judge agrees, he should narrow the ruling to cover only the part of Trump's executive order that suspends new visas for people from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen.

Other provisions of the order have little or no effect on Hawaii, including a suspension of the nation's refugee program, Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler said Wednesday.

In an attempt to downplay the effect suspending the nation's refugee program would have on Hawaii, Readler said only a small amount of refugees have been resettled in Hawaii. But Watson questioned that reasoning by noting that the government said there have been 20 refugees resettled in Hawaii since 2010.

Other parts of Trump's order allow the government to assess security risks, which don't concern the plaintiffs in Hawaii's lawsuit, Readler said.

The revised order removes references to religion, he said.

CAN AN APPEALS COURT AFFECT THE HAWAII RULING?

The president is asking the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put the ruling by the judge in Maryland on hold while it considers the case.

The Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court will hear arguments May 8. If the court sides with the federal government, it would not have a direct effect on the Hawaii ruling, legal experts said.

The Trump administration's best bet for saving the travel ban is to have the case go before the U.S. Supreme Court, said Richard Primus, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan law school.

"What a ruling in 4th Circuit in favor of the administration would do is create a split in authority between federal courts in different parts of the country," he said. "Cases with splits in authority are cases the U.S. Supreme Court exists to resolve." </s> A federal judge in Hawaii has rejected a motion filed by that state seeking to limit the scope of President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban, parts of which were cleared to be implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said in a ruling Thursday in Honolulu that the Supreme Court is the proper venue to deal with the issue.

Hawaii argued that the government's plan for enforcing the executive order wrongly excluded grandparents and other relatives from the list of close family members who would still be able to get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force. Government lawyers argued against broadening exceptions, as sought by Hawaii and others.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26 that the administration could begin enforcing part the executive order until it makes a final ruling. The high court also agreed to take up the government's appeal of lower-court rulings which had blocked implementation of Trump's executive order.

"Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here," Watson wrote in Thursday's ruling.

Hawaii was one of the federal courts that blocked implementation of the travel order, which would limit for 90 days entry to the United States of those from six predominantly Muslim nations.

Critics claim that Trump's executive order is a "Muslim ban." Trump has claimed that the order is to protect Americans from terrorism.

Trump issued a second, revised order after the first one was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle and after the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals refused to reinstate it.

The revised order calls for a 90-day ban on issuing visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen who want to come to the U.S. But unlike the first executive order, this one does not apply to anyone who has already obtained a valid visa.

Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law would be subject to the ban.

The executive order also imposes a 120-day ban on refugees who have no "bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the United States. </s> UPDATE: 3 p.m.

President Donald Trump says a federal judge in Hawaii demonstrated “unprecedented judicial overreach” when he ordered a temporary halt to Trump’s revised travel ban earlier today.

The president, speaking at a rally in Nashville, said his administration would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We’re going to win,” he said. “We’re going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

After hearing arguments this morning in a Honolulu federal courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson granted the state’s motion for a nationwide temporary restraining order on the revised travel ban, saying Trump’s order violates the religious establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“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.”

UPDATE: 1:45 p.m.

A federal court judge in Honolulu today granted Hawaii’s request to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban a day before it was schedule to go into effect.

In awarding a nationwide temporary restraining order, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson found that Trump’s order violates the religious establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Watson said that while the new order is more narrowly focused, he can’t ignore what Trump said on the campaign trail, including in a March 2016 interview in which he said, “I think Islam hates us,” and an October interview in which he said the Muslim ban has morphed into extreme vetting.

Watson issued his 43-page ruling early this afternoon after hearing arguments from both sides this morning. He said the state “preliminarily demonstrated” that its universities will suffer monetary damages and intangible harms and the state’s economy is likely to suffer a loss of revenue due to a decline in tourism because of the order.

Watson, who was appointed to the court by former President Barack Obama, said he intends to set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the revised order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

But state attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

UPDATE: 1 p.m.

A federal judge in Hawaii has put President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on hold.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling today after hearing arguments on Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.

His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments today about whether it should be put into practice.

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

———

Associated Press

UPDATE: 11:05 a.m.

A federal court judge in Honolulu heard arguments this morning in Hawaii’s case to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban but did not make a ruling from the bench.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said he would issue a ruling on the proposed temporary restraining order before 6 p.m., which is midnight Eastern Time. The executive order is schedule to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the revised order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also includes a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

Government attorneys argued that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

But state attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu is hearing arguments this morning for and against the state of Hawaii’s request to temporarily block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The hearing on the proposed temporary restraining order is being held in Honolulu on the day before the ban is scheduled to go into effect.

State Attorney General Douglas Chin arrived at the Honolulu federal courtroom today after filing the challenge last week, claiming that the ban will harm Hawaii by highlighting the state’s dependence on international travelers, its ethnic diversity and its welcoming reputation as the Aloha State.

Hawaii was the first state to challenge the president’s revised executive order, which replaced the original Jan. 27 edict that barred the residents of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. That order was blocked by a federal appeals court.

The new order, issued March 6, prohibits individuals from six countries if they lack valid U.S. visas. Other tweaks were made in an effort to make it pass legal muster, including the removal of language offering preferential status to persecuted religious minorities.

Attorneys representing the state said the order is just as discriminatory against Muslims as the first one and that it still violates both the U.S. constitution and federal laws.

They said the order will hurt Hawaii’s tourism as well as its universities and and businesses that rely on international recruiting of students and employees. Ultimately, they said, it will hurt the state’s economy.

But federal government attorneys said it is mere speculation the order will hurt the state’s tourism industry and universities.

The order, they said, was modified with a religion-neutral text that does not discriminate and also has a waiver process to help reduce any undue hardship.

U.S. government attorneys argue that the president’s action is consistent with the executive’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and national security.

State attorneys said the order flies in the face of Hawaii’s and the nation’s values. They said an injunction would merely retain the status quo while the court fully considers the issue.

Hawaii’s lawsuit includes a Muslim plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of a Honolulu mosque. He says the ban prevents his mother-in-law, who lives in Syria, from visiting family in Hawaii.

It’s not clear when Watson will rule on the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.

Attorneys from the Washington, D.C., law firm Hawaii has hired will participate by phone. Justice Department attorneys are also phoning in for the hearing.

Fourteen state attorneys general and 58 technology companies have filed amicus briefs supporting Hawaii’s challenge. The attorneys general argue that the revised ban retains the unconstitutional components of the original order, including a broad ban on entry by nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries and a suspension of the refugee program.

Hawaii is one of several states where the travel ban is being challenged before its planned implementation Thursday.

In Maryland today, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang said he will issue a ruling in another lawsuit challenging the travel ban, but he did not promise that he would rule before the ban takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. He also said he may issue a narrow ruling that does not address the ban nationwide.

The lawsuit in Maryland was filed by the ACLU and other groups representing immigrants and refugees, as well as some individual plaintiffs. They argue banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion. They also say it’s illegal for Trump to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half.

Government lawyers argued the ban was revised significantly to address legal concerns and no longer singles out Muslims.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart will hear arguments today in the lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The group says the new version of the travel ban discriminates against Muslims and raises the same legal issues as the original.

Robart also is overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state. He also issued the order halting nationwide implementation of the first ban. Among the plaintiffs in the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project case is a legal permanent resident who has been trying to bring her 16-year-old son from war-torn Syria.

———

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Back to top

Temporary restraining order by Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Scribd
In response to a federal appeal, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson (Hawaii), who on March 15 issued a temporary, national restraining order on implementation of the revised federal immigration/refugee rules, upgrades his earlier ruling to a preliminary injunction until Hawaii's lawsuit is resolved.