Less than two hours after a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on the Trump administration's revised travel ban, the president slammed the decision as "an unprecedented judicial overreach." 
 
 A day before the executive order was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson blocked the limitations on travel and immigration. Watson's ruling in Hawaii Wednesday noted that "a reasonable, objective observer… would conclude" that the ban "was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion." 
 
 Speaking Wednesday night at a rally at Nashville's Municipal Auditorium, President Trump said the court was motivated by "political reasons," adding that he expected to be "criticized ... for speaking harshly about our courts." 
 
 "The order... blocked was a watered-down version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with," Trump said. 
 
 He added, "This ruling makes us look weak." 
 
 The decision in Hawaii was just the latest hindrance to Trump's ongoing promise to protect the country from terrorism. He has continuously argued a temporary limit on travel is necessary while an "extreme vetting" process is instituted to better gauge the potential threat of those wishing to enter. 
 
 Trump signed the revised executive order on March 6, replacing his January 27 ban which was met with widespread protests and legal challenges after travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa were prevented from travelling to the U.S. The original order was blocked by a federal judge's temporary restraining order in Washington state in February -- a move that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later declined to stay. 
 
 The president noted at the rally that steps were taken to defend the order against further disputation, saying, "This new order was tailored to the dictates of the 9th Circuit's -- in my opinion -- flawed ruling." 
 
 He went on to vow that his administration would continue to pursue the matter in court, a promise similar to the one he made after the first executive order was restrained. Trump tweeted in February, "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!" 
 
 That pledge was broken when the revised order rescinded the original. 
 
 "We are going to fight this terrible rule," Trump said at the Nashville rally. "We are going to take our case as far as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court. We are going to win. We are going to keep our citizens safe and regardless, we are going to keep our citizens safe, believe me." ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201703/2151/1155968404_5361762127001_5361759951001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Judges use Trump’s own words in ruling against revised travel ban Two federal judges halt the president’s second attempt at his executive order, citing Trump’s prior vows to seek a Muslim ban. 
 
 A federal judge in Hawaii issued a worldwide restraining order against enforcement of key parts of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order just hours before the directive was set to kick in, backed up by a second federal judge in Maryland who put out his own ruling blocking parts of the order. 
 
 U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson ruled Wednesday that the state of Hawaii and a local Muslim leader had “a strong likelihood of success on their claim” that Trump’s order intentionally targets Muslims and therefore violates the Constitution’s guarantee against establishment of religion. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 Watson bluntly rejected the federal government's claims that the new directive does not target Islam because it is focused on six countries that account for less than 9 percent of the world's Muslims. 
 
 "The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable," wrote Watson, an appointee of President Barack Obama. "The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise." 
 
 Hours after that opinion emerged, a federal judge in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang — also an Obama appointee and a former Department of Homeland Security deputy counsel — held that Trump's order appeared to violate a specific provision in federal law by blocking the issuance of immigrant visas from the six targeted countries. 
 
 The rulings are another serious blow to Trump’s attempt to limit immigration as part of what he claims is an effort to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S. 
 
 Trump slammed the decision during a speech to a campaign rally in Nashville on Wednesday a short time after the new restraining order was issued. 
 
 "This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. ... This ruling makes us look weak," the president declared before appearing to vow to take the issue to the Supreme Court. "This is a watered-down version of the first one. ... I think we should go back to the first one and go all the way which is what I wanted to do in the first place." 
 
 “Trump’s statements tonight? He should just continue talking, because he’s making our arguments for us,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. 
 
 A spokewoman for the Department of Justice called the ruling "flawed both in reasoning and in scope," adding that the administration will "continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts." 
 
 Trump effectively abandoned the earlier, broader version of his travel ban order after the bulk of it was blocked by another federal judge and a three-judge appeals court panel declined to allow Trump to restore it. 
 
 As the White House mulled the possibility of an appeal of the latest ruling, there was one piece of good news for Trump's team: Roughly two hours after Watson issued the new restraining order, five 9th Circuit judges formally declared that the original appeals panel made a "fundamental error" by refusing to let Trump proceed with his first order. 
 
 The dissenters' move does not alter that earlier ruling but could be seen as a signal to other judges or even the Supreme Court that Trump's travel orders are legally valid. 
 
 "The President’s actions might have been more aggressive than those of his predecessors, but that was his prerogative," Judge Jay Bybee and four other Republican-appointed appeals judges wrote in a dissent from the decision not to reconsider the appeals court's earlier ruling. "Even if we have questions about the basis for the President’s ultimate findings — whether it was a 'Muslim ban' or something else — we do not get to peek behind the curtain. So long as there is one 'facially legitimate and bona fide' reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end." 
 
 However, Chuang soundly rejected that approach in his ruling from Maryland early Thursday, using Trump's campaign comments and pledges to conclude that the primary purpose of Trump's travel ban order was to advance religious bias. 
 
 "These statements, which include explicit, direct statements of President Trump's animus towards Muslims and intention to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States, present a convincing case that the First Executive Order was issued to accomplish, as nearly as possible, President Trump's promised Muslim ban," Chuang wrote. 
 
 Chuang's decision flatly dismissed the federal government's arguments that Trump's comments before he took office should not be considered in assessing the executive order's purpose. 
 
 "Simply because a decisionmaker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from the 'reasonable memory' of a 'reasonable observer,'" the judge wrote, pointing to a federal appeals court decision that considered "billboards and campaign commercials" for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in concluding that he was motivated by religion when he had a Ten Commandments display installed at a state courthouse. 
 
 Breaking News Alerts Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
 
 Chuang said the conclusion that anti-Muslim sentiment was the primarily reason behind the travel ban was supported by the fact that it seemed to be a poor fit for known terrorist threats. 
 
 "In this highly unique case, the record provides strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban," the judge wrote. "While the travel ban bears no resemblance to any response to a national security risk in recent history, it bears a clear resemblance to the precise action that President Trump described as effectuating his Muslim ban." 
 
 Watson's order took a similar tack, citing campaign trail statements by Trump that the judge said amounted to "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor." 
 
 Watson's ruling — applicable "in all places, including the United States" — blocked two core provisions of Trump's redrafted order: a 90-day halt in issuance of visas to citizens of six majority-Muslim countries and a 120-day halt of refugee admissions from around the globe. The judge's 43-page decision was issued about two hours after a court session in Honolulu during which he heard arguments over the legality of the revised order, which Trump signed last week. 
 
 Chuang's decision was narrower in effect, halting only the ban on newly issued visas for citizens of the six countries and not interfereing with the interruption in refugee admissions. 
 
 The rulings followed a series of four court hearings on Trump's revised travel ban held in the hours before it was set to take effect. 
 
 In addition to the court sessions in Honolulu and Greenbelt, Maryland, two hearings took place in 
 
 Seattle, where U.S. District Court Judge James Robart listened to arguments on a suit filed by individuals in Washington state and their family members abroad. In addition, a group of about half a dozen states asked Robart, the same judge who issued the injunction last month blocking Trump's first travel ban, to declare that his initial ruling covers the president's replacement order. 
 
 Citing differences in the two orders, the George W. Bush appointee turned down that request, according to reporters in the courtroom. However, Robart left unclear whether he would grant separate motions to block the new order. 
 
 At the Maryland hearing, refugee aid organizations pleaded with Chuang not to ignore Trump's numerous vows to cut off travel to the U.S. by adherents of Islam. 
 
 “It’s asking the court to turn a blind eye to all of the evidence that’s apparent to everybody," said Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It doesn’t make sense to blind the court.” 
 
 However, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall warned the judge against taking into account statements Trump made before he took office. The Justice Department lawyer said the revised order doesn't even mention religion. 
 
 "This is an order that draws no religious distinctions at all," Wall insisted. 
 
 The Maryland suit was filed last month by two refugee aid groups, the International Refugee Assistance Project and HIAS, a Jewish charity that facilitates refugee resettlement in the U.S. for the federal government. Several individuals who claim to be directly affected by Trump's orders are also plaintiffs. 
 
 The Maryland suit is the only one that includes a challenge to a specific aspect of Trump's orders: a provision lowering the cap on annual refugee admissions for the current fiscal year to 50,000 from 110,000. In addition to the broader argument about the order as a whole being tainted by religious bias, the suit argues that Trump had no authority to lower that cap since federal law says it must be established before the fiscal year begins. 
 
 Justice Department attorneys also argued that the case should wait to see whether individual immigrants receive waivers that allow them to get visas despite the six-country ban. 
 
 Washington state Attorney General attempts to block Trump's revised travel ban poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201703/1795/1155968404_5353862488001_5353850248001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" 
 
 However, National Immigration Law Center lawyer Justin Cox said that suggestion was bizarre given the claim that the process itself amounts to illegal religious discrimination. 
 
 "If there were a special process for black folks to live in a certain neighborhood, you wouldn't say their claims are not ripe until they're denied" permission, Cox said. 
 
 After the Maryland hearing, refugee advocates used bleak language to describe the scramble underway to protect their clients in case the revised travel's bans directives kicked in. 
 
 "We're trying to find emergency shelter and places for people to hide so they don't get killed while the U.S. is in the process of implementing this executive order," said Rebecca Heller of the International Refugee Assistance Project. 
 
 Josh Dawsey contributed to this report from Nashville. Nahal Toosi also contributed to this report. ||||| President Donald Trump urged Chief Justice John Roberts to "study the numbers," after Roberts rebuked him for saying a federal judge gave his administration an unfavorable ruling because of the president who appointed him. | Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Image via AP legal Trump hits back at Chief Justice Roberts, escalating an extraordinary exchange The president had originally attacked a District Court judge who ruled against his asylum policy as an 'Obama judge.' 
 
 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President Donald Trump took swipes at each other Wednesday in an extraordinary exchange over just how partisan federal courts really are. 
 
 Roberts said Wednesday morning there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges” after the president attacked the judge who ruled against his attempt to restrict asylum seekers at the border earlier this week. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” 
 
 Later in the afternoon, Trump hit back with two posts on Twitter: 
 
 “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why.....,” the president wrote, followed by: “.....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!” 
 
 Playbook PM Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
 
 The statement from Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, was a stark divergence from the chief justice's stoic aversion to publicly criticizing Trump, even as the president has railed against federal judges who did not rule in his favor. 
 
 Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, called Trump’s comments against the judiciary “unprecedented” in modern history and praised Roberts for defending the Judicial branch. Chief justices have historical avoided fighting with the other co-equal branches of government, but Tobias said he was “heartened” by Wednesday’s break from deference to keep Trump in his lane. 
 
 “I think it’s great that the chief justice has said something, because the Senate has done nothing on these issues and somebody has to protect the independence of the judiciary,” Tobias said. “So I’m not troubled.” 
 
 The Associated Press first reported Roberts' comments. 
 
 Talking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump criticized Judge Jon Tigar of U.S. District Court in Northern California, who ruled against his policy announced this month that would require migrants to apply for asylum at legal border crossings. Currently, migrants can present themselves to immigration officers after illegally crossing the border and request asylum. Cases from the Northern District of California are appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 
 
 A number of advocacy groups sued the Trump administration shortly after it announced the policy, and Tigar issued a temporary restraining order effectively thwarting the president's efforts. Trump on Tuesday accused Tigar of being an "Obama judge" and called the 9th Circuit a "disgrace." Tigar was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2012. 
 
 "Every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit because they know that's not law. They know that's not what this country stands for. Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten." Trump said. "People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and then file their case." 
 
 He also said, “The 9th Circuit is really something we have to take a look at because it’s not fair." 
 
 Trump added that he felt confident the case over his asylum policy would go to the Supreme Court where his administration would prevail — similar to his travel ban on citizens of several majority Muslim countries. A modified version of that policy was upheld in the Supreme Court after several challenges in lower federal courts, with Roberts writing the majority opinion in that case. 
 
 Even before Trump’s presidency, Republicans have tried to fill federal courts with conservative judges, blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from getting a Senate vote. Trump ultimately filled the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death with Justice Neil Gorsuch. 
 
 Senate Republicans stalled several of Obama's appointees to federal courts until former Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unleashed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules requiring only a simple majority to approve most federal judicial nominations. 
 
 This year, Republicans and Democrats engaged in a dramatic fight over the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — Trump’s second nominee to the high court — which was mired in allegations of sexual assault. Both parties accused each other of toying with parliamentary procedure and manipulation in order to block or ram through the confirmation. 
 
 Trump has a track record of attacking the judiciary. He disparaged a federal judge in Hawaii last year as practicing "unprecedented judicial overreach" when he blocked an executive order barring entry to citizens of some majority Muslim countries. 
 
 In another Wednesday tweet, Trump even toyed with dividing the 9th Circuit into two or three circuits because, he said, it is “too big.” 
 
 Trump also lambasted U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided over a class-action lawsuit against the now-defunct Trump University in 2016. Trump called Curiel, who is of Mexican descent and was born in Indiana, a "Mexican judge" to discredit his rulings. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called the remarks at the time the “textbook definition of a racist comment." 
 
 The president continued his attack early Thursday, tweeting: "Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result. Judges must not Legislate Security... 
 
 "....and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else. They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe. Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death. We want the Constitution as written!"
– President Trump held a campaign-style rally in Nashville, Tenn., Wednesday night, and a federal judge's blocking of his new travel ban hours earlier was one of his chief topics. The president slammed the Hawaii judge's decision as "unprecedented judicial overreach" and accused the court of acting for "political reasons," ABC News reports. The order blocked "was a watered-down version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with," Trump told the raucous crowd, adding: "This ruling makes us look weak, which we no longer are." He vowed to fight the "terrible rule" all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, to "keep our citizens safe." At the rally, which followed a day of events marking Andrew Jackson's 250th birthday, Trump praised the controversial leader as one of America's great presidents, and one who opposed the "arrogant elite," WHNT reports. "Does that sound familiar?" he asked the crowd. During his 40-minute speech, Trump also praised his administration's accomplishments so far and repeated his promise to repeal ObamaCare, which he said is now in a "catastrophic situation," the Tennessean reports. "It's time for us to embrace our glorious national destiny," he said at the end of his remarks. Several protesters were removed during his speech, including a woman with a "Medicare for all" sign.