Following the ruling of a federal judge in Hawaii to suspend Donald Trump's immigration order, a federal judge in Maryland also ruled against this plan of the U.S. President, which prohibits the travel of citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries to the United States. The Associated Press reported on Thursday, March 16, that Theodore Chuang, a federal judge in Maryland, cited previous statements by Trump in his ruling to suspend the immigration order, considering it part of a ban on Muslims traveling to the U.S. U.S. government lawyers reject the argument that Trump targeted Muslims with this plan, but Judge Chuang stated in his statement that Trump's remarks during the election campaign and his promise to impose a ban on Muslims traveling to the U.S. 'still holds true here.' The ruling by the federal judge in Maryland specifically targets the part of Trump's order that bans the entry of nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen to the U.S. for 90 days, while the ruling from the federal judge in Hawaii temporarily suspends the entire order, including the issue of refugee acceptance. Judge Chuang noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the temporary halt on refugee acceptance contradicts the principles of the country's constitution. Previously, U.S. government officials had assured that Trump's revised order would prevail in legal disputes. Following the ruling by the federal judge in Washington State to suspend his first immigration order and the appellate court's confirmation of this ruling, Trump made changes to his order, including removing Iraq from the initial list of countries included in the travel ban or removing the clause that differentiated between religious minorities in these six countries regarding refugee acceptance. However, several U.S. states took legal action against this order, arguing that Trump's new order does not differ significantly from the original order in principle. Judge Theodore Chuang also referred to these changes in his remarks, stating, 'Despite these changes, Trump's past public statements remain credible evidence that the purpose of the second executive order is to achieve a ban on Muslim travel.' Trump's second immigration order was set to take effect on Thursday, but the rulings of federal judges in the U.S. change the circumstances. Trump criticized this ruling, stating that he would take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
A Court in Maryland Also Ruled Against Trump's Second Immigration Order
A federal judge in Maryland ruled against Trump's second immigration order, which bans travel from six predominantly Muslim countries, citing Trump's previous statements as evidence of a Muslim travel ban. This follows a similar ruling from Hawaii, impacting the implementation of the order set to take effect soon. The situation highlights ongoing legal challenges to Trump's immigration policies.
👥 Key Players
📰 What Happened
A federal judge in Maryland ruled against Trump's second immigration order, which bans travel from six predominantly Muslim countries, citing Trump's past statements as evidence of a Muslim travel ban. This follows a similar ruling from Hawaii, affecting the implementation of the order.
- The immigration order specifically targets nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.
- Judge Chuang emphasized that Trump's previous comments indicated a discriminatory intent behind the order.
💡 Why It Matters
📚 Background
Trump's immigration orders have been controversial, particularly regarding their impact on Muslim-majority countries, including Iran. Legal challenges have emerged questioning the constitutionality of these orders.
🏷️ Entities Mentioned
Translated from the original and edited for English readers. View original source →
Translation confidence: 85%