Watson not only considered the executive order as written, but surprisingly, its intent, which he ruled violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting religious hostility.
On Thursday, however, the notion that these two orders are merely rewording of one another was cast into doubt by none other than U.S. District Judge James Robart, the same man who blocked Trump's original executive order last month.
A Hawaii judge also put a temporary block on Trump's revised ban, but an appeal of that case would have gone to the same San Francisco-based appeals court that rejected the original version of the ban.
Trump noted that the revised order was made to rectify problems found with the first travel ban, which was set aside. Trump administration challenged the decision and argued that the ban was justified taking the plea of protecting U.S. as part of his "Make America great again" policy.
Big "if", though. Alan Dershowitz (whom Trump mentions in the clip) argued last night that Trump will nearly certainly win this case in the Supreme Court because the Court doesn't want to be in the business of having to parse politicians' everyday blather to judge whether an official act is constitutional or not.
The indicated plan by the government to appeal the Maryland case to the Fourth Circuit Court would not have an impact on the Seattle cases, because that Circuit Court does not make decisions binding on the Seattle court.
"We are going to take our case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court. We're going to win.We're going to keep our citizens safe, believe me". "The President's Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation's security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts".
Many critics of the ban have even used Trump's campaign speeches as proof that his ban was indeed nothing but discrimination against a religious group.
Government attorneys counter that the new order has been stripped of any mention of religion, and urge the judge to focus instead on the national security threat the US faces from terrorists living in the targeted countries.
"President Trump and his advisors should think long and hard before trying to impose a travel ban a third time". The Justice Department will appeal both of Wednesday's decisions, allowing the 9 Circuit to take another thwack at the president's order and giving the left-leaning 4 Circuit an opportunity to examine it for the first time.
Based on the context and the comments by Trump, the judge came to the conclusion that " a reasonable, objective observer.would concluded that the Executive Order was issued with a goal to disfavor a particular religion".
Government lawyers in Maryland argued that the updated version of the travel order had undergone substantial revisions and that it is necessary in the interests of national security in order to protect the USA from "radical Islamic terrorism".
A federal judge in Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order against part of the travel ban.
O'Neill Kennedy, communications director of Penn State College Democrats, said she does not look at the travel ban any differently than she had before.
The administration rolled out the revised order better than they did the first one. As Watson observed, quoting the 1982 case Supreme Court case Larson v. Valente, "the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination can not be officially preferred over another".