The Department of Justice has appealed the Maryland decision to the USA 4th Circuit Court of Appeals but has not appealed in the Hawaii case.
But his 32-page decision goes far beyond that technical question, giving a major victory to the Trump administration and its authority to issue the order, which would temporarily ban immigration from six Muslim-majority countries and suspend the USA refugee program.
In his ruling, Trenga said that the ban "likely falls within the bounds" of Trump's authority as president.
"The substantive revisions reflected in EO-2 have reduced the probative value of the President's statements to the point that it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate objective of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that goal", Trenga added.
The partisan divide over the House Intelligence Committee's probe of Russian interference in the USA presidential election deepens when the committee's top Democrat suggested its Republican chairman canceled a public hearing after pressure from the White House.
"We're pleased with this ruling, which found that the plaintiffs had no likelihood of success on the merits of their claims", Spicer said Friday during the daily press briefing.
A lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which brought the suit, said his client will appeal.
The Eiffel Tower Turned Off Its Lights In Solidarity With London
Parliament on Wednesday, landmarks across the world showed their solidarity to the victims. She said the two cities "share the same love of freedom and a commitment to democracy".
Last week, a federal judge in Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order against the travel ban's implementation.
As previously reported on The Root, Trump's original ban was signed on January 27 and halted a week later by a federal judge in Washington State.
"The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable".
Watson blocked the ban hours before it was set to take effect. Most provisions remain blocked by court order.
"It does not surprise me that a judge would defer to the president in such matters", said Stephen Wasby, a legal scholar at the State University of NY in Albany who isn't involved in the case and is critical of the travel ban.
Indeed, Banzhaf expects that administration lawyers arguing against the current injunctions on Trump's second travel ban will point out that the logic and arguments used by the lower court judges to justify enjoining the second travel ban would apply equally to the laptop ban, as well as to any other security measures the administration might have to take in the future which adversely impacts Muslims. But James says the laptop ban on flights might be the one time he's right.
The Hawaii and Maryland rulings agreed with arguments that the travel ban violated the Constitution by discriminating against Muslims.