LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD:

Watson agreed that it's wrong to undertake a "judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts," but he said he didn't have to. "There is nothing 'veiled' about this press release: 'Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,'" the judge wrote. He continued:

Nor is there anything "secret" about the Executive's motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order: Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive Order came to be. He said: "When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"

On February 21, 2017, commenting on the then-upcoming revision to the Executive Order, the President's Senior Adviser, Stephen Miller, stated, "Fundamentally, [despite "technical" revisions meant to address the Ninth Circuit's concerns in Washington,] you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome [as the first]."

These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order's stated secular purpose. Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, "secondary to a religious objective" of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims.

Basically, the Trump administration can't publicly declare again and again that they intend to find a way to legally discriminate against Muslims, then turn around and claim that the ban does no such thing.

So, how did the president respond to this latest setback? By complaining that the current order is just a "watered-down version" of the original, more discriminatory order, and bringing up "radical Islamic terrorists."

Tweet   @brothersjudd