Federal judge in Virginia rejects bid to block proposed travel ban

Will appeal ruling, says lawyer for Muslim civil-rights group

McLEAN, Va. -- A federal judge in Virginia ruled against a Muslim civil-rights group that sought to block the proposed travel ban by President Donald Trump's administration.

The ruling Friday by U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga is at odds with rulings from federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland who have issued orders preventing the bulk of the executive order from taking effect.

Trenga, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, had questioned at a hearing this week whether the injunction sought by the civil-rights group is necessary, given the orders already in place from the Hawaii and Maryland judges.

But his 32-page decision goes far beyond that technical question, giving a victory to the Trump administration and its authority to issue the order, which would temporarily ban immigration from six Muslim-majority countries and suspend the U.S. refugee program.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selectedimmigration statistics, U.S. border map]

The legal issue, Trenga wrote, is not to determine whether the executive order "is wise, necessary, under- or over-inclusive, or even fair."

The judge said his job is simply to determine whether the order "falls within the bounds of the President's statutory authority or whether the President has exercised that authority in violation of constitutional restraints."

At this stage of the lawsuit, Trenga concluded, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood to succeed on the merits.

A lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which brought the Virginia case on behalf of multiple clients, said he will appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. That court is already scheduled to hear the government's appeal from the Maryland case on May 8.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

"As the court correctly notes in its opinion, the president's order falls well within his legal authority to protect the nation's security," White House spokesman Michael Short said in a statement. "We are confident the president's fully lawful and necessary action ultimately will be allowed to move forward."

Trenga wrote that the current executive order is substantially different from the first travel ban sought by the Trump administration, which also was blocked by multiple judges before it was rescinded in favor of the current order.

This revised order no longer carves out an exception favoring Christians and other religious minorities from Muslim-majority nations included in the ban. It also spells out the administration's justification for the ban and does not seek cancellation of existing visas, as the original order did.

The Virginia case was brought by Linda Sarsour, a well-known Muslim activist from Brooklyn, N.Y., and national co-chairman of the Women's March on Washington that took place the day after Trump's inauguration. The suit was the first that sought to use Trump's recent public remarks against him in court, in addition to his comments about Muslims during the campaign.

The council's lawyers described it as just a gussied-up version of the "Muslim ban" Trump proposed during his campaign. They urged the judge to look beyond the text and consider its intent in the context of Trump's public statements, which they say reveal an anti-Muslim bias.

Trenga wrote that the president's past rhetoric has become less significant given the significant changes between the first and second executive orders.

The Justice Department issued a statement praising the ruling. "As the Court correctly explains, the President's Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation's security," spokesman Sarah Isgur Flores said.

Gadeir Abbas, the lawyer for the council, said he is thankful the ruling does not affect the nationwide injunctions imposed by the Hawaii and Maryland judges.

"We look forward to the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court weighing in on this matter, as those are the bodies that will ultimately decide whether the Constitution will protect the rights of Muslim Americans," he said.

The Virginia case is Sarsour v. Trump in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

The Justice Department cited Trenga's ruling Friday in a filing in Honolulu federal court, where a judge is set next week to consider whether his temporary ban should be made more permanent. The government claims Trenga's decision is evidence that the revised order succeeded in eliminating implications of religious discrimination.

The government asked U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to reject a preliminary injunction, the next step in Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin's call for permanently blocking the executive order. If the judge issues an injunction, the Justice Department asked that it be limited to the section of the 15-page travel ban that prohibits new visa applicants from the six Muslim-majority countries. That would leave allow enforcement of a 120-day suspension of new applications for refugees.

Hawaii's attorneys and opponents of the travel ban in other lawsuits argue Trump's discriminatory intent was clear in his presidential campaign.

Information for this article was contributed by Matthew Barakat and Alanna Durkin Richer of The Associated Press and by Erik Larson, David Voreacos, Kartikay Mehrotra and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News.

A Section on 03/25/2017

Upcoming Events