A federal judge ruled that a Syrian man’s family should be allowed to travel to live with him in Wisconsin, despite Trump’s revised Muslim ban, Politico reports.
Madison-based U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued another temporary retraining order on behalf of the Syrian man. He said Trump’s revised Muslim ban can’t prevent the man from bringing his wife and 3-year-old daughter to America. Conley ruled the order only applies to this one case, but left the door open for the revised Muslim ban to be found illegal by the same reasoning which kneecapped its predecessor.
“The court concludes that plaintiff has presented some likelihood of success on the merits and that he is at great risk of suffering irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order is denied,” Conley wrote. “The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order. … As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts.”
“Moreover, given the daily threat to the lives to plaintiff’s wife and child remaining in Aleppo, Syria, the court further finds a significant risk of irreparable harm,” Conley wrote, blocking application of Trump’s order to the family until March 21.
Vincent Levy, the plaintiff’s lawyer, applauded the ruling:
“We’re obviously pleased with this order. Our client’s wife and child are in danger and it will take some time to get them here, so this is obviously helpful. … It’s another indication that [Trump’s] order, even as revised, exceeds the scope of authority granted to the president and that it’s unconstitutional.”
Other cases will begin in Maryland, Hawaii, and other states to block the revised ban.
Washington and Minnesota have asked U.S. District Court Judge James Robart, who was instrumental in ruling against the original ban to do so on the new one. Robart rejected the request, writing:
“The court notes that there is no pending motion concerning the foregoing issues presently before the court. The court declines to decide any of the issues raised in the parties’ filings until such time as one of the parties files a motion that is both properly noted under the court’s Local Rules and properly briefed.”
(image via Michael Vadon/Flickr)