A Hawaiian judge thinks it is highly likely that the second travel EO will not pass constitutional muster. And so he has issued an injunction against its adoption.
I think this is a much closer thing than the first one.
The first one appeared to trespass on the established rights of people with resident alien cards and the probable rights of visa holders.
The second one drew a different line: between those with immigrant status and those without.
Foreigners with immigrant status are "US persons" with various degrees of protection under the constitution. Foreigners without immigrant status are not protected. The US Constitution is a domestic document.
So I doubt the religious test of the first amendment applies. The only way that it might apply is if the EO was a ruse hiding a religious animus. I think it was. But the text of the EO was revised to remove any language of that type. If the unconstitutional language isn't in the EO, then it's surely not too difficult to submit that the EO has been purged of its apparent religious prejudice.
As we know, the President has broad (but not absolute) discretion where security matters are involved. I may think his judgement is weak and that existing arrangements seem to be doing a good job. On the other hand, I may agree with Trump that overturning Obama's late immigration increase was reasonable. But my opinion doesn't matter. He won the right to exercise his political judgement in the electoral college. And so long as what he does isn't illegal, it's within his powers to act.
Regardless of the Hawaiian judge's opinion, I think it is going to be hard to argue this case.
| 
