Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Trump Wants to Return to Original Travel Ban, Take It to Supreme Court

The Trump administration's revised travel ban was supposed to go into effect today, but was halted by a federal judge in Hawaii after the state argued that the restrictions still equaled religious discrimination.

Judge Derrick Watson drew upon campaign statements made by President Trump, senior advisor Stephen Miller, and surrogate Rudy Giuliani to support the state's claim.

"Nothing of substance has changed: There is the same blanket ban on entry from Muslim-majority countries (minus one), the same sweeping shutdown of refugee admissions (absent one exception), and the same lawless warren of exceptions and waivers. The courts did not tolerate the Administration’s last attempt to hoodwink the judiciary, and they should not countenance this one," argued Hawaii in their motion for a temporary restraining order filed last week.

Hawaii claimed violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. They charged that the president exceeded his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act "by imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion," as well as violating "the substantive and procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act."

In his 43-page ruling, Watson said the plaintiffs "have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief."

"The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the 'veiled psyche' and 'secret motives' of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a 'judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts,'" the judge wrote. "The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing 'veiled' about this press release: 'Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'"

That was a Dec. 7, 2015, press release issued by the Trump campaign.

"Nor is there anything 'secret' about the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order," citing Giuliani on TV saying, “When [Mr. 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.’”

The judge continued: "On February 21, 2017, commenting on the then-upcoming revision to the Executive Order, the President’s Senior Adviser, Stephen Miller, stated, 'Fundamentally, [despite “technical” revisions meant to address the Ninth Circuit’s concerns in Washington,] you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome [as the first].'"

"These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose," the ruling said. "Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, 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."