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> A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday declined to issue a ruling sought by the state of Hawaii over President Donald Trump’s so-called "travel ban," saying it didn't have jurisdiction.

Hawaii sought to have grandparents and other relatives exempt from the executive order, which the Supreme Court allowed to partially be implemented in June.

A federal judge in Hawaii on Thursday declined to clarify the high court's order and said Hawaii should have asked the Supreme Court to clarify its order, not the district court. Lawyers for Hawaii appealed, and the appeals court panel on Friday said it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order.

The appeals panel said that while district courts could grant relief if the Supreme Court's order was being violated, Hawaii "sought clarification of the Supreme Court's June 26 order, not injunctive relief" and the lower court was not wrong in denying the request.

Trump's executive 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.

The definitions announced by the State Department on June 29 said parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas.

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

Lawyers for Hawaii said that the government was unlawfully excluding foreign nationals.

"Every day that passes is a day when our government is turning away human beings — from newborn children to elderly grandparents — whom the injunction requires to be admitted," the state said in its request to the appeals court.

The Supreme Court in June also agreed to take up government appeal of lower court rulings which had blocked implementation of Trump’s executive order. </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 </s> A U.S. appeals court on Friday denied the state of Hawaii's request to issue an emergency order blocking parts of President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said it did not have jurisdiction to act on Hawaii's request. The U.S. Supreme Court last month let the ban on travel go forward with a limited scope, saying it could not apply to anyone with a credible "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity. (Reporting by Dan Levine; editing by Grant McCool) </s> A federal judge in Hawaii blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on entry into the United States on Wednesday, just hours before it was to have taken effect.

The ruling, granting a request for a temporary restraining order by the state of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh, stalls the president’s second attempt to suspend admission of nearly all refugees for 120 days and to restrict visas for nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, who said the restraining order applies nationwide, said Trump’s travel order was religiously discriminatory.

Watson, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the district court in 2013, didn’t formally rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself. Critics, including Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, have called it a thinly veiled unconstitutional “Muslim ban,” which Trump has denied.

But Watson wrote that he believed Hawaii had a “strong likelihood of success on the merits” in its attempt to overturn Trump’s order on religious grounds.

The court record, according to Watson, shows “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order,” in violation of the Constitution.

Watson cited public statements by Trump that he said established that the order was targeted at Muslims — including his comments after he signed the first executive order in January that he was “establishing a new vetting measure to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America” because “we don’t want them here.”

Watson also cited remarks by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a prominent Trump supporter, who said in January: “When he [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.'”

“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,” Watson wrote.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration had no immediate comment.

In addition to Honolulu, hearings on similar requests were held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Bethesda, Maryland, and in Seattle, where judges didn’t immediately issue any rulings.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office challenged the initial executive in a lawsuit that resulted in its being blocked, called the Hawaii ruling “fantastic news” on Twitter.

Elshikh, Hawaii’s co-plaintiff, is a legal U.S. resident, but his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would have been barred from legally entering the United States under the president’s order. He and the state argued that Trump’s order would discriminate on the basis of nationality and would harm tourism and recruitment of foreign workers.

In the Maryland hearing, refugees’ advocates and civil liberties groups also argued that the order would discriminate against Muslims, “stigmatizing and demeaning one religious group.”

Trump’s first order in late January caused chaos at airports, with students, professors and green card holders among those reporting that they were turned away or detained and were subjected to lengthy travel delays and questioning.

The federal judge in Seattle, James Robart, blocked the order in a Feb. 3 ruling, and an appeals court refused to reinstate it. Trump issued the order on March 6.

It removed Iraq from the list of affected countries and exempted lawful permanent residents and green card holders. It also dropped a provision that would have indefinitely suspended admission to the United States of refugees from Syria. Trump has said the restrictions were necessary to protect Americans from terrorism. </s> A defiant Donald Trump has pledged to appeal against a federal judge’s order placing an immediate halt on his revised travel ban, describing the ruling as judicial overreach that made the United States look weak.

In granting the temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit by the state of Hawaii, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson found on Wednesday that “a reasonable, objective observer ... would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Early on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in a similar case in Maryland brought by refugee resettlement agencies represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

Chuang ruled that the agencies were likely to succeed in proving that the travel ban portion of the executive order was intended to be a ban on Muslims and, as a result, violates the U.S. Constitution’s religious freedom protection.

Explainer: Trump’s immigration ban, Part II: What we know so far

“To avoid sowing seeds of division in our nation, upholding this fundamental constitutional principle at the core of our nation’s identity plainly serves a significant public interest,” Chuang wrote in his ruling.

The actions were the latest legal blow to the administration’s efforts to temporarily ban refugees as well as travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries. The president has said the ban is needed for national security.

However, the orders, while a victory for the plaintiffs, are only a first step and the government could ultimately win its underlying case. Watson and Chuang were appointed to the bench by former Democratic President Barack Obama.

Trump, speaking after the Hawaii ruling at a rally in Nashville, called his revised executive order a “watered-down version” of his first.

The president said he would take the case “as far as it needs to go,” including to the Supreme Court, in order to get a ruling that the ban is legal.

The likely next stop if the administration decides to contest the Hawaii judge’s ruling would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Three judges on the Ninth Circuit upheld a restraining order on the first travel ban issued by a Washington state judge.

At that point, the government’s legal options were to ask for a hearing by a larger panel of judges or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Instead, the administration withdrew the ban, promising to retool it in ways that would address the legal issues.

If the Ninth Circuit were to uphold the Hawaii court’s ruling, an appeal to the Supreme Court would be complicated by its current makeup of four conservative and four liberal judges, with no ninth justice since the death of Antonin Scalia more than a year ago.

The travel ban has deeply divided the country on liberal and conservative lines, and it is unlikely that a ninth Supreme Court justice would be seated in time to hear an appeal in this case.

Trump signed the new ban on March 6 in a bid to overcome legal problems with his January executive order, which caused chaos at airports and sparked mass protests before a Washington judge stopped its enforcement in February.

Watson’s order is only temporary until the broader arguments in the case can be heard. He set an expedited hearing schedule to determine if his ruling should be extended.

Trump’s first travel order was more sweeping than the second revised order. Like the current one, it barred citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, but it also included Iraq, which was subsequently taken off the list.

The revised ban also excluded legal permanent residents and existing visa holders and provided waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

Hawaii and other opponents of the ban claimed that the motivation behind it was Trump’s campaign promise of “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

In Washington state, a group of plaintiffs applying for immigrant visas asked U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle - who suspended the first ban - to stop the new order. Robart was appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush.

Judge Robart said he would issue a written ruling, but did not specify a time line. </s> WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Monday laid out its first significant legal defense of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, arguing in a court filing that the harm opponents say it causes is "speculative" and that the president was well within his authority to issue the directive.

Responding to a lawsuit by Hawaii, Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump's new executive order solves any possible legal problems that came with the first one, because it is narrower in scope and outlines a robust list of people who might be exempted.

"Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the sweeping relief they seek," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Opponents of Trump's executive order have asked federal judges in several states to block the administration from enforcing the directive, and two judges have scheduled hearings for Wednesday to hear arguments on the matter. The order -- which suspends the U.S.' refugee program and bars the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- is set to take effect Thursday unless a court intervenes.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selectedimmigration statistics, U.S. border map]

Hawaii was the first state to sue over the directive, arguing that the new executive order, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damages the state's robust tourism industry.

In support of Hawaii's lawsuit, several states, as well as Washington, D.C., filed documents in federal court Monday saying they want to collectively file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief.

The states are Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

A federal judge in Honolulu is to hear the motion Wednesday.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

Hawaii's lawyers 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, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the economic harm alleged by the state was "mere speculation" and that Elshikh's mother-in-law had no reason to sue because she had not been denied a waiver to enter the country. The new executive order, unlike the old, spelled out a list of people who might be granted exemptions, including those seeking to visit or live with family in the United States.

"The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "Among other things, therefore, plaintiffs cannot show that any individual whom they seek to protect is in imminent risk of being denied entry due to the Order."

The state will have to convince a judge that Trump's ban is likely to ultimately be found unconstitutional and that it will impose immediate, irreparable harm unless it is stopped. A hearing in the case is Wednesday afternoon.

Federal judges in Washington state and Maryland were also considering separate challenges to the new ban, and either could pre-empt the need for action in Hawaii. A hearing in the Maryland case is Wednesday morning, and Washington on Monday formally asked a judge to enforce his freeze of the previous ban on the new one and to schedule a hearing for today.

"While the new section differs from the original by excluding Iraqis, lawful permanent residents, and visa-holders, it bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries, including: relatives of U.S. citizens, students who have been admitted to state universities, prospective employees of state universities and private businesses, and many others," lawyers for Washington wrote. "This Court's original injunction protected these individuals and institutions, and the Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants' request to narrow the injunction to exclude them."

The administration has argued that the ban is necessary for national security reasons, though many diplomatic and national security professionals have said they disagree with that assessment and that the new ban would probably not have kept out anyone responsible for a fatal terrorist attack since 2001.

In their filing, Justice Department lawyers pointed to 300 people who entered the United States as refugees and are under investigation in terrorism-related cases, and asserted that hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted of such offenses.

"More fundamentally, plaintiffs miss the point," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The Order's objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks before they occur. And that is precisely why the Order focuses on six countries that Congress and the prior Administration recently determined pose the greatest risk of terrorist infiltration in the future."

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently blocked the administration from enforcing the order with respect to one family. In that case, a man who had fled Syria and been granted asylum in the United States sued so the ban would not be applied to his wife and 3-year-old daughter, who are still in Aleppo and have asylum applications being processed.

The judge ruled that the family had "some likelihood of success on the merits" and that the man was "at great risk of suffering irreparable harm" if the order were not blocked, so far as it applied to his family.

Information for this article was contributed by staff members of The Associated Press. </s> (CN) – The Ninth Circuit on Monday became the second federal appeals court to uphold a stay of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, even as he presses the Supreme Court to reinstate it.

Monday’s decision follows a May 25 ruling by the Fourth Circuit that concluded Trump intended to discriminate against Muslims from the six countries he targeted in his executive order.

The administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let the ban take effect while the justices decide whether to review the Fourth Circuit ruling.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that Trump exceeded the scope of his authority in issuing the revised travel ban and largely upheld a ruling in Hawaii federal court that prevented the implementation of a ban on all travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

“Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show,” the 86-page opinion states. “The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.’”

The ruling marks the second defeat for the Trump administration in the Ninth Circuit, with both decisions focusing on the presence of unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims embedded in each executive order. The first one was issued a week after Trump assumed office and a second, revised travel ban came in early March.

In the first case, the state of Washington sued the Trump administration, saying the ban was a thinly veiled attempt at harming Muslims. U.S. District Court Judge James Robart granted Washington a temporary restraining order, preventing implementation of the ban. The Ninth Circuit refused in February to reinstate the first travel ban.

Rather than appealing, the Trump administration revised the travel ban in a new executive order issued March 6.

This time around, Hawaii sued and U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson granted a temporary restraining order for similar reasons.

After Watson’s ruling, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized it by saying he was “amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.”

Monday’s Ninth Circuit ruling will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is already weighing whether to take up the Fourth Circuit appeal. </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.
A request by the state of Hawaii to issue an order blocking President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13780 is rejected in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.