Hawaii is the first American state to hurl a legal challenge against US President Donald Trump's second version of the US travel ban. According to Hawaii's Attorney General, the revision is still a ban against Muslim-majority countries that targets immigrants and refugees "under the pretense of national security."
According to NPR, the Trump Administration revised the original ban to make it "more difficult to challenge in court." Hawaiian Attorney General Doug Chin said the revised US travel ban against Muslim-majority countries "leaves the door open for even further restrictions." To create a satisfying legal argument, Chin said the Attorney General's office is reviewing the new order and "will decide what next steps may be necessary."
Hawaii has a painful history with immigration bans during the Second World War. Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps in retaliation against Pearl Harbor and ongoing Japanese campaigns against America's own in the Pacific theater of war. According to Chin, the fear of new comers "could lead to bad policy."
According to ABC News, the US Department of Justice did not comment on Hawaii's litigation that would encourage the US District Judge Derrick Watson to set a hearing for March 15, which would effectively restrain the executive order before its intended implementation on March 16.
The Muslim Association of Hawaii Imam Ismail Elshikh said the ban would keep relatives of Muslims from Hawaii from visiting -- including his Syrian mother-in-law. During the implementation of the earlier US travel ban, Kurds flying into the United States were stopped in airports, including Green Card holders. The second iteration of the travel ban would admit Green Card holders, but would admit travelers from the six nations on a "case-by-case" basis.
The Hawaiian lawsuit argues that part of Hawaii's population is subject to "discrimination and second-class treatment," which the state argues as "a violation of both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act." The litigation also claims the executive order is "establishing a state religion" by "disfavoring a religion."
