Trump Muslim travel ban: Hawaii judge rejects motion to limit injunction

James Tennent

A federal judge in Hawaii who ordered an injunction halting the new travel ban by US President Donald Trump's administration has rejected a motion from the Department of Justice to limit his restraining order to only affecting the part of the order that stops citizens of six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.

Judge Derrick Watson rejected the DoJ motion, leaving in place his injunction from Wednesday that halts the travel ban against citizens from the six countries, as well as the temporary ban on refugees and annual refugee cap.

Trending: Kim Jong-un oversees North Korea's high-thrust rocket engine test

After the initial ruling, Trump told a rally in Nashville that the injunction was "an unprecedented judicial overreach".

During the legal battle that struck down the Trump administration's first attempt at a ban on selected entry into the US, Trump called the man who made the legal ruling a "so-called judge". That sparked a backlash rallying around the independence of the judiciary - a cornerstone of the American constitution.

Don't miss: Man who planned bath with girl, 14, caught by paedophile hunters in McDonald's car park

The latest version of the ban differs in that Iraq is not included in the list of countries whose citizens cannot enter the US and it does not affect permanent residents or those who already hold visas.

The first order was roundly criticised for it's roll-out, with little warning or consultation that it was coming, leading to chaos at airports.

Most popular: Australian teenager mauled after jumping into crocodile-infested river for a dare

The Department of Justice filed a motion on Saturday (18 March) asking for clarification on which sections of the executive order the restraining order applied to. It argued that because some sections were not addressed by attorneys fighting the ban, "it is therefore unclear whether the court intended for its Temporary Restraining Order to extend to all of those provisions".

Quoted in Politico, Watson responded that the motion asked for a distinction that was never made in earlier arguments.

IBTimes UK contacted the US Department of Justice for comment on the ruling but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

You may be interested in: