Just to make things every more muddy, a Boston Federal Judge has ruled the other way.
A federal judge in Boston on Friday decided not to extend a temporary restraining order against President Trump's controversial immigration executive order arguing that it wasn’t a “Muslim Ban.”
Judge Nathaniel Gorton, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, issued his ruling just after 5 p.m. Friday — a few hours after a hearing on the matter in federal court.
...
Matthew Segal, the ACLU's legal director, presented arguments for the plaintiffs and several times implored the judge to consider the intent of the president's executive order, not strictly the words used in the order.
Judge Gorton repeatedly read from Trump's order, at one point asking the plaintiffs' attorneys: "Where does the executive order specifically mention a Muslim ban or majority-Muslim countries?"
Segal mentioned several of Trump's campaign promises, specifically his calling for a "Muslim ban," and Segal also referenced tweets to the same effect. "This is a case that can hinge on the government's intention," he said, emphasizing what he called the White House's desire to fulfill a campaign promise.
In his decision, Gorton wrote that five lawful permanent residents listed as plaintiffs are not affected by the executive order — only after clarification from the White House this week — and their claims are moot.
The reason for this judges decision at least in part seems to be based on the clarification issued by the White House council that change the understanding of the executive order to not include permanent residents and green card holders. So although CNN is fulminating that these decisions are in opposition, they are in fact, not.
The ACLU plaintiffs were in that group, so their argument in Massachusetts is now moot, but for visa holders and approved refugees the issue remains and is now stayed until the 9th Circuit sees the appeal from the DOJ.