The budget seeks billions for Trump's border wall with Mexico. Credit:AP He lambasted the government, in particular, for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims. "The illogic of the Government's contentions is palpable," Watson wrote. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed." At a rally in Nashville, Trump called the ruling "terrible" and asked a cheering crowd if the ruling was "done by a judge for political reasons." He said the administration would fight the case "as far as it needs to go," including up to the Supreme Court, and rued that he had been persuaded to sign a "watered-down version" of his first travel ban. "A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries," Trump told the crowd, which reacted with boos. "The order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with."

Several hundred people march through Harvard University while protesting the travel ban. Credit:AP Trump said both actions represented "an unprecedented judicial overreach" that threatened "the safety of our nation." He read his audience the legal statute giving a president the power to curb the detrimental "entry of any aliens or any class of aliens." As Trump noted, the second ban was tailored to get around the judicial criticisms of the first measure, which was to be rescinded when the second one went into effect. US President Donald Trump's executive order has been frozen. Credit:Bloomberg As the ruling in Hawaii was being handed down, James L. Robart, the federal judge in Washington who froze Trump's first travel ban, was hearing arguments about whether he should freeze the second. He said he did not think his first freeze was still in effect, though he did not immediately rule on whether he should issue a new one.

Watson's decision might not be the last word. He was considering only a request for a temporary restraining order, and while that required him to assess whether challengers of the ban would ultimately succeed, his ruling is not final on that question. The Justice Department could now appeal the ruling, or wage a longer-term court battle before the judge in Hawaii. US District Judge James Robart blocked the initial January 27 executive order. Credit:NBC Watson's decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Hawaii. Lawyers for the state alleged the new entry ban, much like the old, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was essentially a Muslim ban, hurt the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damaged the state's robust tourism industry. The hearing in Hawaii came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state itself. Lawyers for Hawaii alleged the new travel ban, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damages the state's robust tourism industry. Sit down: A demonstration against Donald Trump's executive order on immigration at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Credit:AP

They pointed particularly to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law would ultimately be banned from entering the United States. "Dr Elshikh certainly has standing in this case. He, along with all of the Muslim residents in Hawaii face higher hurdles to see family because of religious faith," lawyer Colleen Roh Sinzdak said at the hearing. "It is not merely a harm to the Muslim residents of the state of Hawaii, but also is a harm to the United State as a whole and is against the First Amendment itself." Justice Department lawyers argued that the President was well within his authority to impose the ban, and that those challenging it had raised only speculative harms. "They bear the burden of showing irreparable harm ... and there is no harm at all," said Acting US Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the government in Greenbelt, Maryland in the morning and by phone in Hawaii in the afternoon. The arguments were similar at the hearing in Maryland, where a federal judge peppered both sides with pointed questions about whether the revised executive order would harm Muslims, refugees and the organisations that serve them.

"I think we've been going for quite a while," US District Judge Theodore Chuang said after the nearly two-hour hearing. "I appreciate everyone's advocacy ... I'll try to issue a written ruling - hopefully today, but not necessarily." The President's new executive order suspended the US refugee program for 120 days, halted for 90 days the issuance of new visas to people from six Muslim-majority countries and reduced the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States this year from 110,000 to 50,000. The ACLU and lawyers for refugee aid organisations asked Judge Chuang to halt the entire order, arguing that it is a pretext to discriminate against Muslims, who make up the majority of refugees admitted to the United States. "If you were trying to ban Muslims," ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat told the judge in court, "banning refugees would be one compelling way to do it". Justin Cox, a lawyer for the National Immigration Law Centre who also argued in court, said refugees and immigrants feel that Trump's order essentially targets Islam. "All of these individuals express that they feel that their religion has been condemned by the executive order," he said.

Justice Department lawyers say the order is "substantially different" from Trump's January 27 travel ban, which stranded thousands of travellers overseas and ignited protests at airports and elsewhere before it was blocked by US District Judge James Robart in Seattle. The Trump administration urged Judge Chuang not to halt the order, saying its chief goal is to prevent terrorists from entering the country. The six countries named in the order, which are majority-Muslim, were selected because the administration of former president Barack Obama identified them as having security threats, Wall told the judge, adding: "What he's concerned about are radical Islamic terrorists." Wall said the plaintiffs in the legal challenge, who include individuals as well as refugee-aid agencies, would not suffer immediate harm from the order because it provides for waivers. Nor would the aid agencies suffer financially, he said, because they would have fewer refugees to serve, and therefore fewer expenses. But the ACLU and other lawyers said the list of potential harms is long. Refugees already in the United States will remain separated from families living in dangerous conditions overseas, they said. Other refugees who had expected to come to the United States this fiscal year would not be allowed in. HIAS, the nation's oldest refugee resettlement organisation, said it would lose funding and would probably have to lay off employees because of the reduced refu­gee admissions. The organisation used to be known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. During the hearing, Judge Chuang said it was unclear whether he could order the President to admit all refugees.

The judge also questioned the urgency of the government's review of the visa and refugee vetting process, noting that one report ordered in Trump's first executive order on January 27 was overdue. "Not that the government always meets deadlines on reports, I understand," the judge said. Wall said those reviews are underway. Near the end of the hearing, Judge Chuang noted the polarisation in the case, weighing the safety of refugees against Trump's stated fears for security at home. "Is there somewhere in between?" he asked.

Judge Chuang signalled that he could rule on Wednesday, but lawyers for refu­gee rights groups said they are also looking to court hearings in Washington state and Hawaii for possible relief. Judge Robart was set to hear the case in Washington on Wednesday. Trump's first travel ban was a less-detailed directive that abruptly suspended the refugee program, halted travel for all citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, including travellers who already had been issued visas, and lowered the cap on refu­gee arrivals. After parts of that order were frozen, Trump issued the new executive order, giving travellers 10 days' notice and, government lawyers say, making several significant changes. The order removes Iraq from the list of banned countries, exempts visa and green-card holders, and allows excluded foreigners to apply for waivers to enter the United States. The order applied to people who want to come to the United States and are citizens of Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria. The Department of Homeland Security said on its website that the six nations have been identified as "countries of concern due to the national security risks associated with their instability and the prevalence of terrorist fighters in their territories". Government lawyers also alleged in court filings that some refugees have proved to be national security threats. For instance, they said a Somali refu­gee was convicted of attempting to bomb a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Oregon and that the FBI is investigating more than 300 refugees for potential terrorist activities.

But the plaintiffs, led by the International Refugee Assistance Project, said in court filings that the government's evidence about security threats was "implausibly thin." They said the Somali refu­gee had lived in the United States since he was a toddler, and that any improved screening could not have predicted his crime. And they said the FBI's claims about 300 investigations are "meaningless" without evidence. The plaintiffs allege that the Trump administration has retooled its original executive order with the continued goal of discriminating against Muslims. They point to statements by Trump and some of his advisers during the presidential campaign and afterward that, they say, demonstrated an intent to bar Muslims from entering the United States. Loading "While the revised order differs in some respects from the first, it is no less a reflection of discriminatory intent than the previous version," they said in legal briefs filed March 10. Washington Post