"The court's analysis, which hinges on parsing statements by Trump and his surrogates on cable news, and determining whether the president repudiated his prior policies, is better suited for fact-checkers".
As Donald Trump, bans people from many Muslim majority countries from entering the US, Americans take to the streets in protest.
The revised order temporarily bars entry to the United States of most refugees as well as travellers from six Muslim-majority countries. "This ruling makes us look weak".
Hawaii pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed.
Lawyers for the state argued that the new travel ban violates the First Amendment - which prohibits religious discrimination - because it is essentially a Muslim ban.
Watson said the new order was "issued with a objective to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral goal". It might be noteworthy that Watson is former president Barack Obama's appointee.
Not Having Children Could Cause Early Death
The findings apply to men and women, the researchers claim, although fathers saw their life expectancy increase more than mothers. While parents are known to be the givers of life, a new study has suggested that children also make their parents live longer.
On 15 March, Trump was speaking at a rally in Nashville. The Trump administration says the revised ban would increase national security. The losing side - the Trump administration or the state of Hawaii - can appeal the Court of Appeals' decision in the Supreme Court.
"What we are arguing before the court is that court should stop in its tracks before it even takes effect", said Matt Adams, legal director for Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. "We're going to win".
Watson's decision Wednesday is not a final determination on the merit of those arguments, but it indicates he thinks Hawaii is likely to succeed when those arguments are eventually considered.
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 objective.
Refugees' advocates and civil liberties groups asked the Maryland court to find that the order discriminated against Muslims, "stigmatizing and demeaning one religious group".
A USA judge in Hawaii scheduled a hearing on a challenge to the ban brought by the state's attorney general and a Muslim imam who lives there. "This new travel ban is different".