Department of Justice

Travel Ban 3.0 Blocked Again By Judge Derrick 'Kiss My Backside' Watson

Citing lack of evidence, Travel Ban 3.0 is temporarily stayed.

By  
on

(Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s thrice revised Travel Ban was due to go into effect tomorrow, October 18th. It will not. Hawaii Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a temporary injunction against the ban, just like he did with the last one and the one before that.

Judge Watson does not like the Travel Ban. Judge Watson is not fooled by Muslim Bans disguised as Travel Bans no matter how many non-Muslim countries you add to throw people off the scent.

Judge Watson blocked the current version of the Travel Ban because it: “lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

The legalese aside, at core Judge Watson has been asking one question throughout all of these Travel Ban lawsuits, and the government has failed to answer him: Why? WHY does the government NEED to ban people based on their country of origin? “Errmm… security!” is not a good answer to that question. Before Watson caves to the government’s forces, he wants to know why these bans are necessary.

It’s worth pointing out that Judge Watson’s question might not be the right question. Let’s say the President wanted to ban clowns because he saw a show where a clown murdered children. When adjudicating the Pennywise Protection Act, a judge might ask “Why are you banning clowns? Could somebody tell the President the difference between a movie and a documentary?” But another question might be: “Does the President have the authority to ban people based on their chosen profession?” Both questions might lead you to the same answer, of course, but how we get there is important.

The White House responded to Watson’s injunction the way it always does. It promised to appeal the “deeply flawed” decision. It said “security” 1,800 times. It invoked the separation of powers.

Sponsored

It’s only the last one that bothers me. We know that Watson’s decisions have a good track record of being affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. We know that liberal judges are immune to the fear mongering of “security” as an excuse to abandon our values. Only the most arch-conservative judges are going to buy that tripe.

But the separation of powers, this is how moderates justify executive racism, and I still think Travel Ban 3.0 has done just enough to give those judges cover. You don’t have to agree with Trump’s policy, you just have to agree that Trump has the right to make terrible policy.

Why can the president ban people based on their country of origin? “Because I said so,” is not a satisfying answer, but I fear that it will be enough of one for judges less committed to American exceptionalism than Judge Watson.

Federal Judge In Hawaii Blocks Trump’s Third Attempt At Travel Ban [NPR]

Sponsored

Elie Mystal is an editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

 

Travel Ban 3.0: We’ve Finally Achieved A Patina Of Legalism To Cover The Bigotry

Topics

, , , , , , ,