Federal Judge HALTS new travel ban nationwide

[Tintrlvr]

This should ruling should be overturned , I disagree with the order but it is not even close to being unconstitutional and the fact that this happened proves that judges have become way too political .This ban does not apply to people who have green cards, or already have visas, it just applies to future visas. Secondly it doesnt have any religious exceptions which means it does not violate the establishment clause.

Judges are ONLY supposed to look at the written language of a law or executive order not intent or campaign speeches by person who signed it.

This is not true at all. Discriminatory intent is a well-established aspect of 5th and 14th Amendment jurisprudence with decades of history behind it. No possible ban that applies only/primarily to predominantly Muslim countries can survive a court challenge at this point; Trump and his surrogates destroyed their chances of that by promising a "Muslim ban" incessantly on the campaign trail, which makes the discriminatory intent of any relevant EO clear.

The green card/visa stuff is a red herring that is totally irrelevant to the constitutionality.

[Tintrlvr]

Can anybody explain to a layman like me why American law (equal protection clause) would apply to foreigners?

In this case, the court ruled that the State of Hawaii as a whole, on behalf of its residents, as well as an individual Muslim Hawaiian who is an American citizen, would be harmed by the discriminatory EO as a result of its interference with their relationships with family and friends who are non-citizens overseas. The courts are tying the cases to the harm caused to American citizens and states that are acting on behalf of their residents by discrimination against Muslim non-citizens rather than ruling that Muslim non-citizens themselves are protected by the Constitution.

While courts are not taking this route because they do not have to do so, it would be quite arguable that equal protection under the 5th Amendment due process clause applies to non-citizens in any case. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause says: "nor shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." No mention of citizens, just "persons." While equal protection is not explicitly included in the 5th Amendment, it has been read to be included in the 5th Amendment's guarantee of due process, which, once again, does not specify citizens: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Taken literally, that applies to non-citizens with just as much force as it applies to citizens.

[Tintrlvr]

Having a glance through the judgement it all seems to be based on the idea that non resident aliens have rights under the constitution, which is contrary to all prior law. He talks about a Muslim man who is being descriminated against in his 'right to associate with family members oversees'. Has anyone ever heard of this 'right' before or did the judge just pull it out of his arse? People have pointed out that as recently as last year the Supreme Court confirmed that First Amendment applies to citizens only and yet one District Judge proclaims it applies to the entire planet because it suits his social justice ideology and never mind the law.

This particular Muslim man is a US citizen. And the right to association is extremely well established, as are related rights to maintaining family relationships. Zablocki v. Redhail (1978, establishing a constitutional fundamental right to marriage) and Troxel v. Granville (2000, establishing a fundamental right of parents to have a parental relationship with their children without third-party (in that case, grandparent) interference) are very central cases in jurisprudence on the right to associate with one's family, and a lot of the recent same-sex marriage jurisprudence talks about basically the same concepts. The original seminal case on fundamental rights, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925, establishing a fundamental right to private education), which established the idea that there are "unenumerated" rights in the Constitution, is probably one that you would even approve of.

As a more general matter, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights#United_States

The right