In aggressive litigation, Oregon has decided to take the new Donald Trump travel ban executive order to court. The state’s attorney general won nationwide blockage on the original disastrous travel ban. She claims that the two laws are the same, but are they?
AG Ellen Rosenblum is suing the president for temporary ban on immigration from six countries with majority-Muslim populations, according to the AP. Oregon claims that the two executive orders are the virtually the same.
The U.S. Justice Department will argue that there are substantive differences in the two orders. The new executive order eliminated Iraq from the banned nations and any mention of religion.
A Republican judge blocked the original ban, and Rosenblum wants to, in essence, piggyback this travel ban upon the older one. The real question becomes whether the president’s new order just amends the first one, or is an entirely new order.
Hawaii’s Attorney General Douglas Chin filed a lawsuit against Trump’s new travel ban Wednesday based upon the impact it would have on the state’s Muslim population, foreign students, and tourism. According to USA Today, he wrote:
‘For many in Hawaii, including state officials, the executive order conjures up the memory of the Chinese Exclusion Acts and the imposition of martial law and Japanese internment after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.’
Senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller made a damning comment on Fox News last month:
‘Fundamentally, you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you’re going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court, and those will be addressed. But, in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.’
According to the Washington Post, former New York mayor and the president’s cybersecurity advisor Rudy Giuliani said the president asked for a “Muslim ban” and “the right way to do it legally.” During his campaign rallies, Trump often commented that he wanted all the Muslims banned.
If Rosenblum can convince the judge that this is the old ban dressed up in new clothes, that would mean an automatic win for her and the people of the United States. However, the original ban ends on March 16th.
The judge may question how it is possible to block something that no longer exists. The judge may not want to call for a restraining order before he does a full briefing and hearing on the new executive order. On the other hand, the judge may want to prove the point that the government cannot just change the wording to get around a lawsuit.
When the state of Washington introduced its brief on the original ban, joined by 15 other states including Oregon, the attorneys general wrote that its impact was harmful, according to KATU News:
‘The states have already been harmed by this Executive Order and its shifting implementation by the federal government. This uncertainty was compounded by the actions of officials at the highest levels of the federal government, who vacillated over how to interpret and apply the Executive Order.’
The people are not letting Trump off easily.
Featured Image: KATU News Twitter Page.