Donald Trump makes comments on his second travel ban that could end up defeating it in court
Two federal judges have put nationwide restraining order on executive order
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Donald Trump’s comments about his latest travel ban could lead to the executive order being defeated in court, a former White House ethics lawyer has said.
Two federal judges have already put a nationwide restraining order on the ban, which restricts travel to the US from six Muslim-majority countries.
The President's new order was designed to withstand legal challenges after the first one was blocked in the courts.
Dubbing the latest legal rulings as a “terrible ruling”, Mr Trump told supporters at a campaign-style rally in Tennessee it was “a watered-down version of the first one”.
He said: “I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way (to the Supreme Court), which is what I wanted to do in the first place."
Norman Eisen, who worked under President Barack Obama, branded the comments a “legal disaster”, adding: “He is digging a grave for the second executive order and maybe even the third one”.
Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Mr Trump and the architect of the first travel ban, made similar comments in January.
“Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country”, Mr Miller said at the time.
This was subsequently cited as justification for the restraining order by Derrick Watson, a US district judge in Hawaii.
Judge Watson concluded that while the order did not mention Islam by name, “a reasonable, objective observer… would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavour a particular religion”.
A second judge in Maryland identified similar concerns, ruling that the purpose of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims.
The new executive order has removed any reference to religion and does now not involve green card holders. It also removed Iraq from the list of targeted countries.
But lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union echoed Judge Watson’s comments, saying Mr Trump’s statements on the campaign trail, and interviews given by advisers make clear that it was an attempt to block Muslims from entering the country.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments