“A review of the historical background here makes plain why the Government wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor,” Watson wrote.

Watson found parts of the new travel ban, which targeted non-visa holders from six countries with Muslim majorities and halts refugee resettlement programs, likely violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which makes it unconstitutional for the government to disfavor certain religions. Citing Trump’s interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in March 2016 (when he said “Islam hates us”), a July 2016 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” (when he insisted he wasn’t rolling back the Muslim ban) and Trump’s comments during the Oct. 9 presidential debate (when he argued his Muslim ban idea had “morphed” into “extreme vetting”), Watson said there was a “remarkable” set of facts that made the purpose of the travel ban clear.

For example, “there is nothing ‘veiled’ about a press release titled ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,’” Watson wrote, linking directly to a December 2015 statement that is still available on Trump’s campaign website.