U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga said Trump's redrafted order was different enough from his first travel ban that it should be allowed to go forward. | Getty Virginia judge backs Trump on travel ban Key parts of revised order remain on hold due to other judges' rulings

A federal judge in Virginia has affirmed President Donald Trump's authority to issue his revised travel ban executive order, although key parts of the directive remain blocked due to rulings from two judges in other states.

In a ruling Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga said Trump's redrafted order was different enough from his first travel ban and involved enough additional deliberation that it should be allowed to go forward despite arguments that it's simply a disguised version of the "Muslim ban" Trump repeatedly promised during the presidential campaign.


"The substantive revisions reflected in [the second order] have reduced the probative value of the President’s statements to the point that it is no longer likely that Plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate purpose of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that purpose," Trenga wrote in a 32-page opinion.

"In EO-2, the President has provided a detailed justification for the Order based on national security needs, and enjoining the operation of EO-2 would interfere with the President’s unique constitutional responsibilities to conduct international relations, provide for the national defense, and secure the nation," the judge added.

Trenga appeared to suggest that if he'd ruled on the first order, he would have come to a different conclusion.

"This Court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent. And while the President and his advisors have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2, the Court cannot conclude for the purposes of the Motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority," the judge wrote.

Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland issued rulings last week against Trump's revised order, which puts a 90-day halt on issuance of visas to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries and suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days.

The Maryland judge ruled that Trump was barred by a non-discrimination provision in federal law from cutting off immigrant visas from specific countries. Trenga declined to go along with that conclusion.

At another point, Trenga said it was clear that the law allows Trump to stop any group of foreigners from entering the U.S. "The President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border," the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs in the Virginia case, Muslim activists affiliated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, vowed to appeal.

"Definitely, we'll be appealing it. That may even be filed today," CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.

"Fortunately, his decision doesn't alter the previous injunctions already blocking what we call the Muslim Ban 2.0," Hooper added, referring to the two court orders issued last week. "We look forward to the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court weighing in on the matter and we believe that ultimately the Constitution will prevail."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer hailed the decision.

“We’re pleased with this ruling, which found that the plaintiffs had no likelihood of success on the merits of their claims,” Spicer told reporters during his daily briefing on Friday. “We’re confident that the president’s fully lawful and necessary action will ultimately be allowed to move forward through the rest of the court system.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores also welcomed the court's opinion.

"As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security," Isgur Flores said.

Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The federal government has already appealed the Maryland case to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit, which also hears appeals from federal courts in Virginia. The 4th Circuit has scheduled arguments May 8 on the Maryland case, although a ruling on the Trump administration's request to stay the existing injunction could come sooner.

The Justice Department has not yet appealed the temporary restraining order entered in the Hawaii case, brought by the State of Hawaii and a local Muslim imam.

While the Alexandria-based Trenga generally sided with the government in his ruling, he parted company with it on one point: he said it was appropriate for judges to look beyond the executive order itself in assessing its validity.

"The Court rejects the Defendants’ position that since President Trump has offered a legitimate, rational, and non-discriminatory purpose stated in EO-2, this Court must confine its analysis of the constitutional validity of EO-2 to the four corners of the Order," the judge wrote. "The Court has therefore carefully assessed President Trump’s facially legitimate national security basis for EO-2 against the backdrop of all of the statements the President and his closest advisors have made."

Trenga was appointed by President George W. Bush, but had a history of supporting Democratic political candidates before taking the bench. The judge has issued several rulings against the government and in favor of a Muslim American from northern Virginia in a suit challenging U.S. "no-fly list" procedures as unconstitutional.