Virginia federal judge rules Trump's travel ban is justified

Posted March 25, 2017

Trump signed the revised travel ban order on March 6, after the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's injunction against his initial January 27 executive action.

Federal Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Michele Ernst said on Thursday the agency is aware of reports of threatening messages against US District Judge Derrick Watson and is prepared to help if necessary.

The judge highlighted the changes made to narrow the scope of the travel ban after an initial version of the order was struck down by federal courts in January and February.

"The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for the protection of federal judicial officials, including judges and prosecutors, and we take that responsibility very seriously", the agency said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. CAIR said it would appeal the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The service says marshals don't discuss specific security measures but does provide additional protection when warranted.

Trump decried Watson's ruling during a rally in Nashville, Tennessee, last week.

Watson's ruling, which applies nationwide, means people from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees will be able to travel to the US.

"The substantive revisions reflected in EO-2 have reduced the probative value of the President's statements to the point that it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate goal of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that objective", Trenga added.

The new ban was announced this month.

The ban would keep people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the USA for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.

"The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable".

A Virginia federal judge has ruled in favour of Donald Trump's travel ban. It did not survive Watson's.

"The fact that the White House took the highly irregular step of first introducing the travel ban without receiving the input and judgment of the relevant national security agencies strongly suggests that the religious objective was primary and the national security goal, even if legitimate, is a secondary, post hoc rationale", Chuang wrote.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga, who sits on the Eastern District Court of Virginia in Alexandria, rebuffed Muslim activists' request to temporarily bar the executive order on the grounds that the ban, which blocks travel to the United States for travelers from six predominately Muslim countries, acts as a discriminatory ban on a particular religious group.