Shoba’s Favorite Quotes from a Hawaii Court Order Converting the Temporary Restraining Order to A Preliminary Injunction
On Wednesday, March 29 a federal district court in Hawaii strengthened an order blocking the most controversial portions of the President’s Executive Order: Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States signed on March 6, 2017. Specifically, the court converted the order from a temporary to a permanent gate on sections of the EO that ban refugees and nationals of six countries with Muslim majority populations from entering the United States. The order applies nationwide. Below are some notable quotes from the decisions. Additional resources on this Executive Order can be found here.
According to the Government, the Court must afford the President deference in the national security context and should not “look behind the exercise of [the President’s] discretion taken ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason” … No binding authority, however, has decreed that Establishment Clause jurisprudence ends at the Executive’s door. In fact, every court has considered whether to apply the Establishment Clause to either the Executive Order or its predecessor (regardless of the ultimate outcome) has done so.
The [defendants’] arguments, advanced from the very inception of this action, make sense from this perspective- where the “historical context and ‘the specific sequence of events leading up to’” the adoption of the challenged Executive Order are as full of religious animus, invective, and obvious pretext as is the record here, it is no wonder that the Government urges the Court to altogether ignore that history and context. …The Court will not crawl into a corner, pull the shutters closed and pretend it has not seen what it has.
Irreparable harm may be presumed with the finding of a violation of the First Amendment.
National security is unquestionably of vital importance to the public interest. The same is true with respect to affording appropriate deference to the President’s constitutional and statutory responsibilities to set immigration policy and provide for the national defense. …however, …the balance of equities and public interest weight in favor of maintaining the status quo. …Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment Rights under the Constitution.