Thread: Breaking: Washington State Judge Halts Travel Ban Nationwide

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
5h
The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!
View details ·



Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
5h
Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!
View details ·



Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
5h
When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!
View details ·


https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

.

Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump travel ban

Last Updated Feb 4, 2017 12:15 AM

”Gorton’s Friday ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, especially since Gorton wrote that Mr. Trump has “broad powers” to decide who can enter the country. By denying the stay, the city must enforce Trump’s order when the temporary block expires Sunday, CBS Boston reports.

The ACLU said it’s deeply disappointed in this decision. Other plaintiffs included international aid group Oxfam America and several non-citizens living in the U.S. legally.”

This issue, Trump's "broad powers", to decide who can enter the country, will be the defining question resolved by the court.


There is no question, we need to know who is and who may not come into our country. And our legislature defines the rules! Not judges.

JWK




…..we [judges] are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

38m38 minutes agoDonald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision
7,52828.9K








2h2 hours agoDonald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?

Breaking: DOJ Appeals Ruling

Washington (CNN)The Justice Department on Saturday appealed a decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that stopped enforcement of the executive order banning travel to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending refugee entry to the US.


Friday night, federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Seattle, halted the enforcement of Trump's order, effective nationwide.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politi...ng/index.html#

Federal Judge James L. Robart, in handing down his ruling blocking Trump’s EO, babbled from the bench that the temporary order is not “rationally based” which is a term used by activist judges and Justices when they disagree with a policy being challenged even though the policy is within the law making body’s authority.

Robart showed his activism by asserting no one from the seven countries listed had been arrested in the United States for terrorist related charges, and associated the EO with the “Keystone Cops”.

Let us recall what our Supreme Court has eloquently stated with regard to Judge Robart’s activist comments: …..we [judges and Justices] are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.__ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

Judge Robart also exhibited political activism when the Obama Administration sued the city of Seattle over excessive police force, and referenced statistics that a higher percentage of Blacks were killed by police in shootings than their percentage of the population, and went on to yap “black lives matter”. Robart never mentioned that perhaps, Blacks are disproportionately involved in violent crimes than their percentage of the population. Of course, these arguments are not the within the purview of the court. Its priority is upholding the rule of law, not altering it to suit their personal sense of “fairness, reasonableness, or justice."

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Just heard Jesse Watters, Fox News, say that the judge does Pro Bono work for refugees.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

Just heard Jesse Watters, Fox News, say that the judge does Pro Bono work for refugees.

See: James Robart: 5 things to know about judge who blocked travel ban

Sat February 4, 2017

”4) He's done pro bono work with refugees
During his confirmation hearing, Republican Senator OrrinHatch of Utah noted that Robart had done pro bono legal work and had represented refugees during his career.

"He has been active in the representation of the disadvantaged through his work with Evergreen Legal Services and the independent representation of Southeast Asian refugees," Hatch said.”


Evergreen Legal Services sued Seattle in 1993 to require bilingual education in the city schools, and also sued to allow vagrants to aggressively beg and obstruct sidewalks in front of commercial areas.

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

Trump administration files appeal challenging Seattle judge's 'terrible and ridiculous' halt on immigration ban 'that opens up country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart'

By Emily Crane and Cheyenne Roundtree For Dailymail.com and Reuters
PUBLISHED: 07:25 EST, 4 February 2017 | UPDATED: 21:43 EST, 4 February 2017
6077 comments

Trump's administration launched an appeal against the Seattle court ruling that suspended his controversial immigration ban, as the president predicts he would win 'for the safety of the country'.

The legal move comes almost 24-hours after a federal district judge in Washington suspended the so-called 'Muslim ban' causing Trump to fire off a day's worth of furious attacks, warning that 'many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country'.

The frantic appeal filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday evening does not immediately lift Friday's temporary halt on Trump's executive order barring certain foreign travelers.

Department of Justice lawyers must wait for the court to make their ruling either to pause the temporary halt or to cancel it outright. However, it was not clear if this would happen Saturday night or take several days.

Until a ruling on the appeal is delivered, airlines have been allowing previously barred foreigners to board U.S bound flights and the State Department has reinstated visas.

Trump said Judge James Robart's ruling was a 'terrible decision' and the country was opened up again to 'terrorists' in a tweet posted hours after Homeland Security announced it would no longer enforce his executive order.



Donald Trump's administration and the Department of Justice have launched an appeal against the Seattle court ruling that suspended Trump's controversial immigration ban. Federal judge James Robart (right) issued a ruling that temporarily halted Trump's order barring immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries on Friday


Pictured: The White House and Department of Justice have launched an appeal of Judge Robart's Friday ruling that freezed Trump's immigration ban. The appeal was filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday evening


As his administration is rushing to have their boss's policy put back in place, Trump attended a gala in Florida.

When asked about the status of the current legal battle, he said: 'We'll win. For the safety of our country, we'll win.'

The Justice Department submitted a notice of appeal to the court and is expected to file its brief outlining its legal argument later on Saturday night.

Although the basis of the legal argument for requesting the 'emergency stay' the White House is seeking is still unknown, Department of Justice lawyers previously argued Washington and Minnesota didn't have the right to sue because they haven't been harmed.

The Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who brought the lawsuit said he was not surprised by the move and would keep fighting.

He said in a statement: 'President Trump’s decision to appeal comes as no surprise, and we will continue to hold him accountable to the Constitution.

'We are confident the Court of Appeals will uphold Judge Robart’s well-reasoned decision halting – immediately and nationwide – the President’s unconstitutional Executive Order.'

The Friday ruling by the veteran Washington jurist, who was nominated by George W. Bush in 2004, temporarily halted Trump's order banning travelers and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

On Saturday afternoon, after playing a round at the Trump International Golf Club near his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump tweeted: 'Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision.'

His post followed on from a tirade of tweets he posted that morning, warning that re-opening borders to the countries affected by the ban could lead to 'death and destruction'.

'When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!' Trump tweeted on Saturday.

'Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction!'


Shortly after the Department of Justice had filed the appeal Trump tweeted that Judge Robart's ruling opened up the United States again to 'terrorists'



Anger: Donald Trump then asked why lawyers were ignoring the decision taken in a Boston federal court



On Saturday afternoon, after playing a round at the Trump International Golf Club near his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump tweeted, that the ban was a 'terrible decision'



His post followed on from a tirade of tweets he posted in the morning, warning that re-opening borders to the countries could have severe consequences






'The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!'

Hours earlier, major airlines started allowing passengers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to fly to U.S. cities if they had valid visa documents.

Judge Robart, who has been on the federal bench for 10 years, is known in legal circles for his community service fighting on behalf of refugees.

But he made headlines once before when he used the phrase 'black lives matter' in a federal case concerning police brutality by the Seattle Police Department.

According to CNN, he told a court in August 2016: 'Police shootings resulting in deaths involved 41% black people, despite being only 20% of the population living in those cities.

'Forty-one percent of the casualties, 20% people of the population -- black lives matter.'

On Saturday morning, hours after Robart's controversial decision, the State Department announced it would be reversing visa cancellations for foreigners to comply with the judge's ruling on Saturday.

At the same time, Department of Homeland Security also said it was suspending any action from the executive order.

Major airlines, including Qatar Airways, Air France, Etihad Airlines, Emirates, Spain's Iberia and German airline Lufthansa said they would allow previously banner passengers to fly to U.S. cities following the judge's ruling.

While judges have ruled against previous presidents in the past, including Barack Obama and George W. Bush, they were not known to have personally criticized judges for their decisions.

The White House slammed the judge's ruling as 'outrageous' and vowed to appeal as soon as possible on Friday night. The temporary restraining order represents a major challenge to Trump's ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge Robart made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, and Customs and Border Protection immediately alerted major US airlines that it will begin to reinstate visas.

The state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said: 'This decision shuts down the executive order right now. No one is above the law - not even the President'.

With the Department of Justice seeking to file an emergency stay to reverse the decision as soon as Saturday, it opens a narrow window for previously barred travelers to enter the country.

However, it was unclear how the change in status was being received on the ground. No U.S. airports reported they were releasing travelers still held in limbo on Friday night and there were no reports of any passengers exploiting the gap.

Going into the weekend, further chaos is undoubtedly expected as the two branches of government begin a tug of war battle over the law - with customs offices attempting to interpret directions at the center.

Executive orders are subject to legal review by a federal court when brought before a US judge. The government's bid to have the temporary restraining order reversed will now play out in court.


Ammar Alnajjar, left, shakes hands with his cousin Fahd Alfakih after coming into New York's JFK International Airport on a flight from Istanbul, Turkey on Saturday when the immigration ban was temporarily suspended



White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement late Friday night that the Department of Justice intends to halt the 'outrageous order' at the earliest possible time


HOW ONE FEDERAL JUDGE'S RULING CAN HALT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

How can a federal district judge seemingly over rule the president?

The temporary restraining order issued by Judge James Robart on Friday has the power to implement new procedures like dictating how the Customs and Border Protection agency should operate.

Executive orders are subject to legal review by a federal court when it is brought before a US judge. In this case, the challenge was brought by the state of Washington and Minnesota.

The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue and issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on the executive order while the court considers the lawsuit filed by the two states. It means government agencies have to comply with the ruling.

Robart's move is not unprecedented. In the past nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders have been imposed by district courts and the federal government must obey, even when other district courts have ruled otherwise.

The Washington state judge used a case from Obama's presidency as precedent for his ruling. A Texas federal district court blocked Obama's plan to shield some undocumented immigrants from deportation.
What happens next?
The Department of Justice said it will file an emergency stay appealing the decision, which is a request to stop it.

US Customs and Border Protection have alerted airlines that refugees in possession of valid US visas will now be allowed into the country.

The government will have to fight the judge's decision in court in a bid to have it overturned.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told CNN on Friday night he expects the case to move quickly through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because of the magnitude of the executive order.

Ferguson said he was prepared for case to go all the way to Supreme Court depending on which way the court of appeals ruled.



The first statement from Spicer used the word 'outrageous' to describe Judge Robart's ruling (pictured)



However, a quick 12 minutes later, the White House issued another release with the same wording but removed 'outrageous' from the statement (pictured)


It took Trump's administration three hours to grasp how to address the Seattle judge's order.

Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement that the Department of Justice intends to halt the 'outrageous order' at the earliest possible time but not as soon as Friday night.

Immediately after releasing the first statement the White House issued another release with the same wording but removed 'outrageous', reported CNN.

The State Department is working with the Department of Homeland Security to determine how it affects its operations, a State Department official said.

Until the Department of Justice wins its emergency stay, previously denied travelers could have a small window of opportunity to enter the country.

Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, made his decision after Washington state and Minnesota urged a nationwide hold on the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.

He repeatedly questioned the federal government's lawyer, Michelle Bennett, about the rationale behind the order.

Robart asked if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Trump's order since 9/11. Bennett said she didn't know.

'The answer is none,' Robart said. 'You're here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that.'

The judge recently became emotional in a hearing over Seattle police reform and closed with a declaration of 'black lives matter', reported The Seattle Times.


Donald Trump was at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida when his executive order was dismantled on Friday. The president waited until Saturday to respond to the matter through his Twitter



Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said: 'No one is above the law - not even the President'. Upon the news of the appeal, he said he would continue to fight the ban



Pictured: The seven countries that were previously banned in Trump's executive order. These travelers can now enter the United States again


Trump's order last week sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.

Judge Robart's decision was an echo of many citizen's beliefs that America has and will always welcome immigrants, including Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos who was one of the biggest advocates for lifting the ban.

Bezos supported the lawsuit against the government that was filed in Washington, the same state as Amazon's headquarters.
Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and immigrant entry.

Washington became the first state to sue, with Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson saying the order was causing significant harm to residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the suit this week.

Ferguson was elected to his position in November 2012 and took office in 2013. He won his re-election the following term.

He has plans to introduce legislation banning semi-automatic assault-style weapons later this year, the Seattle Times reports.
After the ruling, Ferguson said people from the affected countries can now apply for entry to the U.S.

Washington and Minnesota won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which says key sections of Trump's order are illegal and unconstitutional.

In court, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the focus of the state's legal challenge was the way the president's order targeted Islam.

Purcell said: 'We only challenged the parts that are actually affecting people immediately, which are the parts about refugees and the parts about targeting these seven countries.


Trump's order last week sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer


'The parts that have getting so much attention and have been causing such immediate harm to people, stranding them oversees and such, are enjoined right away.'

He told the judge that Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and the travel ban was an effort to make good on that campaign promise.

'Do you see a distinction between campaign statements and the executive order,' Robart asked. 'I think it's a bit of a reach to say the president is anti-Muslim based on what he said in New Hampshire in June.'

Purcell said there was an 'overwhelming amount of evidence' to show that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, which is unconstitutional.

When the Robart questioned the federal government's lawyer Bennett on the matter, she argued that the states can't sue on behalf of citizens and the states have failed to show the order is causing irreparable harm.

Robart disagreed.
Up to 60,000 foreigners from the seven majority-Muslim countries had their visas canceled because of the executive order, the State Department said Friday.

That figure contradicts a statement from a Justice Department lawyer on the same day during a court hearing in Virginia about the ban. The lawyer in that case said about 100,000 visas had been revoked.

The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas.

Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and admitting immigrants.

The lawsuit says Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from coming to the U.S. and kept up that rhetoric while defending the travel ban.

Lawyers pointed to dozens of exhibits of speeches and statements Trump has made.

'The executive order effectively mandates that the states engage in discrimination based on national origin and/or religion, thereby rescinding the states' historic protection of civil rights and religious freedom,' the complaint said, calling it a violation of the U.S. Constitution.


Muslim men pray at a prayer and demonstration at JFK airport to protest President Donald Trump's Executive Order on Friday


The lawsuit ultimately seeks to permanently block parts of the executive order that suspend immigration from the seven Muslim-majority countries, put the U.S. refugee admissions program on hold and halt entry of Syrian refugees.

Ferguson said the order is causing significant harm to Washington residents, businesses and its education system.

It will reduce tax revenue and impose significant costs on state agencies, as well as make it impossible for some state employees and students to travel, he said.

Washington-based businesses Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the state's efforts to stop the order. They say it's hurting their operations, too.

LEGAL CHALLENGES TO TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN IN OTHER STATES

Washington wasn't the only state to have legal battles with the immigration ban. Here are the following challenges that took place in six other states over the past few days.

VIRGINIA
A judge is allowing Virginia to join a lawsuit challenging the travel ban.
Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema greatly expands the scope of the lawsuit, which was initially focused only on legal permanent residents, commonly called green-card holders. Brinkema indicated a willingness to consider cases involving anyone who had been issued a visa and had it revoked.
A government lawyer in the case said more than 100,000 people have had visas revoked since the ban went into effect, but the State Department later said the number was close to 60,000. The higher figure included visas that were actually exempted by the travel ban, as well as expired visas.

MASSACHUSETTS
A federal judge in Boston has declined to extend a temporary injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton late Friday refused to renew an order prohibiting the detention or removal of persons as part of Trump's executive order on refugees and immigrants.
That means the seven-day, temporary injunction granted Jan. 29 will expire as scheduled Sunday.

HAWAII
Hawaii is suing the federal government to stop President Donald Trump's travel ban on people from seven majority Muslim countries.
Attorney General Doug Chin says Trump's executive order keeps Hawaii families apart and keeps residents from traveling. He says it degrades values Hawaii has worked hard to protect.
Chin says the order also will make foreign travelers feel unwelcome, which is a problem for Hawaii's tourism-powered economy.
Hawaii filed the lawsuit in federal court in Honolulu on Friday.

NEW YORK
A Brooklyn judge on Thursday extended a temporary restraining order to Feb. 21, but the Justice Department said it will ask her to throw out the case.
U.S. District Judge Carol Amon's ruling extended a stay that had been issued Saturday by a different judge and would have expired Feb. 11. Amon extended the order to give more time the government and civil liberties organizations to file paperwork.

MICHIGAN
A federal judge in Detroit says U.S. green-card holders shouldn't be affected by the order.
The Arab-American Civil Rights League argued in a suit filed this week in Detroit's U.S. District Court that the executive action is unconstitutional and targets immigrant communities.
A restraining order released Friday from U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts covers legal permanent residents, not some others that also are part of the lawsuit. She says lawyers for the government clarified to her that the ban doesn't apply to 'lawful' permanent residents.

CALIFORNIA
Three California university students are challenging the ban. Their federal suit, filed Thursday in San Francisco, says the ban is unconstitutional and has created hardships for the students.
It alleges that a freshman at Stanford University now can't visit her husband in Yemen; another Yemeni at San Diego's Grossmont College can't resume studies there; and an unidentified University of California Berkeley doctoral candidate from Iran fears losing a job opportunity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ion-order.html

Thank you Jean. That is a very thorough article. But I'm not clear if the notice of appeal is the appeal. I think there may be another document that is the actual appeal that will be filed later. Does anyone know? One would think this would be clear with all the coverage of the ruling but it's not clear.