In rather candid terms, the court dismissed the administration’s claim that national security necessitated the ban:

Plaintiffs point to ample evidence that national security is not the true reason for EO-2 [the 2nd executive order], including, among other things, then-candidate Trump’s numerous campaign statements expressing animus towards the Islamic faith; his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States; his subsequent explanation that he would effectuate this ban by targeting ‘territories’ instead of Muslims directly; the issuance of EO-1 [the original executive order], which targeted certain majority-Muslim nations and included a preference for religious minorities; an advisor’s statement that the President had asked him to find a way to ban Muslims in a legal way; and the issuance of EO-2, which resembles EO-1 and which President Trump and his advisors described as having the same policy goals as EO-1.

Once again, the president and his advisers’ own words proved to be their undoing. (“We cannot shut our eyes to such evidence when it stares us in the face, for ‘there’s none so blind as they that won’t see.’ Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation . . . If and when future courts are confronted with campaign or other statements proffered as evidence of governmental purpose, those courts must similarly determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether such statements are probative evidence of governmental purpose.”)

AD

AD

Having decided to look for the actual motive behind the executive order, the court readily found that its actual purpose racial animus, plain and simple. The court held: “The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that EO-2’s primary purpose is religious. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States.”

Trump’s attorney general vows to take the case to the Supreme Court, but to what end? The purpose of the ban was to give the administration time to come up with super-duper vetting procedures. Surely, they could have accomplished that in four months (longer than the suggested ban on travel to seven countries in the first ban).

Moreover, Trump just visited Saudi Arabia where he waxed eloquent about the Muslim religion and the need for peoples of all faiths to combat radicalized Islamic terrorists. He told Arab leaders from 55 countries, including five named in the original ban (Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya), “To the leaders and citizens of every country assembled here today, I want you to know that the United States is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture and commerce.” He cannot expect his words to be taken seriously if, days later, he pursues an appeal seeking to uphold a ban on those traveling from these very same countries. He cannot on one hand commend the gathering as “a symbol to the world of our shared resolve and our mutual respect” and promise that “the United States is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture and commerce,” while continuing to seek to bar their citizens.

AD

AD

Why does Trump then pursue this useless, counterproductive ban? Most importantly, he cannot stand to lose. Regardless of the ban’s utility, he’ll not drop appeals and concede he was wrong. Second and more important, this is red meat for his crowd, the xenophobic, shiny object he can use to convince his core base that he is “doing something” about foreigners, Muslims in particular.