Trump’s revised executive order banning the travel of residents from six Muslim majority nations was halted by a federal judge in Hawaii Wednesday, in a ruling echoed several hours later by a federal judge in Maryland overseeing a case brought by nonprofits working on behalf of refugees.
Hawaii-based Judge Derrick K. Watson wrote a scathing opinion in which he cited Trump’s numerous forays into hate speech, citing both Trump and his allies’ references to instating a “Muslim ban” once in office. Watson explained that any “reasonable, objective observer” could see “that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, ‘secondary to a religious objective’ of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.”
Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, – who brought the case to court – told reporters, “whenever you have hostility towards a particular religion or nation of origin that’s certainly going to be something that is improper and a violation of the constitution”
The Trump Administration couched the new order in national security terms, arguing that it wasn’t targeted toward Muslins. This, of course, is absurd. His off the cuff rhetorical style has often swerved into hateful territory. The tremendous volume of documentation – including videos of his public speeches – proved to be evidence enough for the courts to argue that the executive order is in fact unconstitutional. Watson even linked to a statement that still exists on Trump’s campaign website explicitly discussing a Muslim ban.
Trump has announced his plans to take the order all the way to the Supreme Court. In an appearance in Nashville, Trump also remarked that he would now return to the original executive order in his ill-fated crusade to ban Muslims. This, of course, was a more severe and explicitly hateful travel ban that has even less of a chance in the courts.