Federal judge in Virginia issues strong rebuke of Trump travel ban

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Federal judge in Virginia issues strong rebuke of Trump travel ban

By Rachel Weiner February 13 at 10:42 PM

A federal judge in Alexandria has issued a preliminary injunction against President Trumps travel ban, dealing another blow to the White House attempt to bar residents of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. ... The executive order, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema concluded, probably violates the First Amendments protections for freedom of religion.

Brinkemas order applies only to Virginia residents and students, or employees of Virginia schools. A nationwide freeze has been in place for several days, having been issued in Washington state and upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. ... In her opinion, Brinkema wrote that the Commonwealth of Virginia “has produced unrebutted evidence” that the order “was not motivated by rational national security concerns” but “religious prejudice” toward Muslims. She cited Trump’s statements before taking office, as well as an interview in which former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) said that the president wanted a “Muslim ban.”
....

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aziz, said the judge was “calling out the ban for what it really is, a Muslim ban.” ... The decision is significant, he noted, because a preliminary injunction requires a higher burden of proof than the temporary restraining order issued in Washington.
....

“Ironically, the only evidence in this record concerning national security indicates that the {order} may actually make the country less safe,” Brinkema wrote, a reference to a letter from a bipartisan group of national security professionals decrying the impact of the ban abroad.
....

Rachel Weiner covers federal court in Alexandria for The Washington Post.Follow @rachelweinerwp
https://twitter.com/rachelweinerwp

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-in-virginia-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-travel-ban/2017/02/13/a6164bfe-f255-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

---

Yes, I did mess up the link at first. I am on dialup, and things happen slowly.

I am proud to be a Virginian today, but that's easy, because I am proud to be a Virginian every day.

[dchill]

2. Here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/judge-in-virginia-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-travel-ban/2017/02/13/a6164bfe-f255-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html

[JudyM]

3. Thanks! Glad Herring is being tough. That's what you want to see as an ex-volunteer.

[Equinox Moon]

4. "was not motivated by rational national security concerns but religious prejudice"

Nailed it!

[cstanleytech]

5. I wonder, can the varies DOJ officials that try to fight to support the ban be held in contempt

or for perjury claiming this wasnt a muslim ban in light of Trumps own statements to the contrary of what he wanted to do?

[Shrike47]

6. No. Contempt requires violation of an existing court order.

Perjury requires a false statement made under oath (testimony) that the person making the statement knew to be false.

[cstanleytech]

7. So why wouldnt perjury be applicable? After all if a government attorney is claiming in court

to a judge "No, your honor this wasnt done because they are muslims" yet proof is shown clearly that it was done for that reason then surely that is perjury isnt it?

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Because Said Person Has To Know It Was False

Depends on who said it and if that person under oath actually thought this was motivated by something other than religious intolerance, to them that was the truth. They would be wrong, but not lying.