A Hawaii federal court blocked the ban, which was to go in effect today.
The judge said that Trump’s campaign comments about Muslims show that the restrictions on travel or immigration from six terrorist-infected countries have the true purpose of discriminating against a religion.
But if the target is Muslims, why aren’t Muslims from the rest of the world blocked? Why just those six countries?
It seems strange to me that a judge insists on interpreting a policy according to campaign rhetoric. This, even after the policy was revised to remove the apparent connection. What if the president had a complete change of heart about things he said in the heat of the campaign? Would his policies still be interpreted according to what he said back then? I just don’t understand how legally the effusions of a campaign speech can have the force of law in determining the meaning of a statute.
Photo of Judge Derrick K. Watson, by United States District Court for the District of Hawaii [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons