President Donald Trump is questioning the legitimacy of the federal judge who blocked Trump’s executive order banning refugees and citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. Tweeting in response to the block, Trump insisted that, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” The bona fide judge drawing the president’s ridicule is Federal District Court judge James Robart in Washington State, an appointee of President George W. Bush who was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. On Friday, Robart temporarily blocked Trump’s week-old executive order from being enforced on a nationwide scale, reinstating the more than 60,000 visas of previously barred travelers and leading U.S. Customs and Border Protection to instruct airlines to being allowing those passengers onto flights to the U.S. The White House quickly promised to request an emergency stay on the “outrageous” order, but the affected travelers will be totally free to enter the U.S. in the meantime.

The judge’s order immediately suspended both the 90-day ban on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as the 120-day ban on refugees. Those bans will resume should the White House win an emergency stay on the order, but on Saturday morning the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that it was complying with the ruling and had “suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections” of Trump’s executive order. Meanwhile, airlines have been announcing that any passenger with a valid U.S. visa will be allowed to board planes to America, though it’s not clear how many people will take advantage of the opportunity to do so, particularly since the ban could be reinstated at any time.

In issuing the nationwide injunction against Trump’s order, Judge Robart argued that there was “no support” for the Trump administration’s argument that the government has to protect the country from citizens of the seven listed countries. In Robart’s opinion, the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota, who had filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the travel ban, had “met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order” since the order “adversely affects the states’ residents in the areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel.”

“The States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Executive Order has inflicted on the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases and public funds,” Robart added. Politico reports that the order “appears modeled on litigation conservative states used to halt President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive actions on immigration,” in that those states argued that they have standing to challenge federal actions that affect them financially.

In another tweet sent by the president on Saturday morning, he implied that allowing “certain people” from Middle Eastern countries would lead to “death and destruction.” In addition to banning refugees, and especially Syrian refugees, Trump’s executive order had also stipulated that the U.S. give preferential treatment to persecuted religious minorities when admitting refugees in the future, which he has indicated as meaning Christians in majority-Muslim countries. That priority classification for religious minorities was also blocked by Robart’s ruling.



This post has been updated throughout to reflect newly available information. </s> Customs officials have reportedly told US airlines that they can board passengers who had been barred from entering the country after a federal judge in Seattle ordered a temporary halt on Donald Trump’s travel ban for refugees and people from seven predominantly-Muslim nations.

Trump administration offers conflicting numbers of revoked visas after travel ban Read more

District judge James Robart granted a temporary restraining order on Friday after hearing arguments from Washington state and Minnesota that the president’s order had unlawfully discriminated against Muslims and caused unreasonable harm.

It was not immediately clear whether authorities would comply with the broad order, especially after officials reacted in confusion a week earlier, detaining valid visa holders and arguing with lawyers.

Late on Friday, the White House released a statement saying that it would seek an emergency stay against Robart’s ruling; an earlier request for a stay by a justice department attorney had been denied by the judge.

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” press secretary Sean Spicer said. In a second “updated” statement, the White House removed the word “outrageous”.

The justice department later said it would not immediately file for an emergency stay, at least on Friday night, and reports said Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had informed US airlines that they should board travelers who had been barred by an executive order last week.



CBP did not reply to repeated questions seeking more information, and a duty officer who answered a phone call referred questions to headquarters.

At San Francisco’s international airport, the duty manager said officials there had received no instructions from the government so far. “We’re just waiting to find out how the law’s changing and morphing,” the manager said. “People are just coming and going. We’re hoping it works out well for everyone.”

Washington state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, hailed the decision as an important victory against the White House.



“We are a nation of laws. Not even the president can violate the constitution,” Ferguson told reporters outside the courtroom. “No one is above the law, not even the president.”

“This decision shuts down the executive order immediately, shuts it down,” he added. “That relief is immediate, happens right now. That’s the bottom line.”

In a statement, the state department said it did not immediately know how to comply. “We are working closely with the Dept of Homeland Security and our legal teams to determine how this affects our operations.” A DHS spokeswoman said that the agency would not comment: “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on pending litigation.”

In his order, Robart wrote that the states had shown “immediate and irreparable injury” caused by Trump’s order.

“The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employments, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” he wrote. He then issued nationwide restraining stops to several sections of Trump’s executive order: its 90-day ban on visa-holders from seven nations, its indefinite ban on Syrian refugee admissions, and its 120-day ban on the entire refugee program.

“The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches,” Robart wrote. “The work of the judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our constitution.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Volunteer immigration attorneys offer to help as people gathered at LAX on 31 January to protest against the travel ban. Photograph: Monica Almeida/Reuters

The judge insisted that his ruling was “narrow” – about whether certain actions by the president were cause for a restraining order – but concluded that “the circumstances brought before [the court] today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government.”

Trump’s order, which was signed a week ago, threw airports into chaos over whether to detain or deport travelers. Last Saturday, federal judges in Brooklyn, Boston and other cities ordered the government to temporarily halt deportations of valid visa holders. Several courts are expected to rule on whether the order is constitutional later this month.

US travel ban - a brief guide The executive order signed by Donald Trump suspends the entire US refugee admissions system, already one of the most rigorous in the world, for 120 days. It also suspends the Syrian refugee program indefinitely, and bans entry to the US to people from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – for 90 days. The order has prompted a series of legal challenges, while thousands of Americans have protested outside airports and courthouses in solidarity with Muslims and migrants.

Also on Friday, a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the US from countries affected by Trump’s three-month ban.

US district judge Nathaniel Gorton expressed skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group’s claim that Trump’s order represented religious discrimination.

Robart’s order represents the first major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to appeal to a higher courtHis ruling does not permanently overturn the president’s order, nor does it rule on its longer-term directives to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Last week, after judges ordered Customs and Border Protection officials to stop deporting travelers with valid visas, enforcement remained confused for days. The Department of Homeland Security said that its officials would comply with court orders, but attorneys said that “rogue” agents continued to detain and even coerce detained travelers into signing away green cards.



In court, Washington solicitor general Noah Purcell called the White House’s arguments “frightening”, arguing that they cloaked everything under a veil of national security concerns. The government had argued, he said: “If the president says, ‘I’m doing this for national security’, then the court cannot review that that’s a reasonable reason. Our view is that’s not the law.”

Is this a Muslim ban? Trump's executive order explained Read more

Ferguson conceded that Congress had given the president broad powers to make national security and immigration decisions, but maintained that the order was unconstitutional discrimination. Robart pressed the government hard, however, on the president’s preference for Christian refugees and why the seven nations had been singled out when no citizens of those countries had committed terrorist acts in the US since September 11 2001.

Robart, who was appointed by George W Bush and confirmed by the Senate 99-0, said it seemed like “a bit of a reach to say the president is anti-Islam” based on his comments during the 2016 campaign but also questioned the justice department’s argument that states do not have standing to sue. He noted, for instance, that University of Washington students and faculty had been blocked from the school. “Is that not a direct financial harm?” the judge asked.

The Washington-based businesses of Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft joined the state’s efforts to stop the order.

Elsewhere in the US, a district judge in Virginia ordered the White House to provide a list of names of “all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States” – a total that tops at least 60,000 people, according to the state department.

Additional reporting from agencies. </s> U.S. District Judge James Robart of Seattle on Friday issued a nationwide restraining order blocking the travel ban put in place by President Trump last week, KOMO news reported.

Trump's ban, created through an executive order, sought to block people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

In issuing his decision, Robart was siding with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who filed a suit to block key provisions of the president's executive order, which also bars Syrian refugees from entering the country.

Word of the decision came shortly after revelations about an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton out of Boston, who refused to extend a temporary order that allowed some people affected by Trump's ban to enter the country.

Gorton ruled that the American Civil Liberties Union failed to demonstrate a need for an ongoing restraining order, according to the Globe.

The ACLU and other advocacy groups were aiming to extend the restraining order. Trump's stay affected travelers coming in from seven majority-Muslim countries and spurred protests at airports across the country. </s> WASHINGTON (AP) – The Justice Department is asking a federal appeals court to set aside a judge’s order that temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s travel ban.

The federal government’s request for an emergency stay was filed Saturday night with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The filing asks the court to lift an order from a day earlier from a judge in Washington state.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge James Robart temporarily halted a Trump administration executive order that suspended America’s refugee program and halted immigration to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The administration on Saturday moved to suspend enforcement of the travel ban as the Justice Department readied its legal challenge.

President Donald Trump has lashed out at Robart on Twitter, calling him a “so-called judge.”

Never miss another Facebook post from WISH-TV </s> A federal appeals court early Sunday morning denied the US government’s emergency request to resume President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday.

What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place — for now.

The US Justice Department filed an appeal just after midnight Sunday, asking to pause Robart’s sweeping decision that temporarily halted enforcement of several key provisions of Trump’s executive order.

The order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

The Justice Department’s strongly worded court filing lodged a multi-pronged attack on Robart’s decision, emphasizing that halting enforcement of the travel ban “harms the public” and “second-guesses the President’s national security judgment” in the immigration context.

“(Robart’s ruling) contravenes the considered judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.

“Courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the President’s prospective judgment about future risks. Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process,” the filing said.

Justice Department lawyers further argued that the parties who filed the lawsuit — the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota — lack the ability to sue in federal court because their alleged harms are too “speculative.”

Since the federal appeals court rejected a request to immediately reinstate the travel ban, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have until 2:59 a.m. Monday to file legal papers, and the Justice Department lawyers have until 6 p.m. Monday evening to reply. Then a three-judge panel will decide whether to schedule a hearing or issue a ruling.

Robart, a Bush appointee sitting in the Western District of Washington, ruled Friday that the states that filed the lawsuit “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the executive order.”

Robart explained that Trump’s executive order adversely affects “residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.”

When Trump was asked at a gala in Florida on Saturday whether he was confident his administration would prevail in the appeal, he replied, “We’ll win. For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security announced it had suspended “any and all” actions to implement the immigration order and would resume standard inspections of travelers, as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban.

After the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Sunday, a US Embassy official in Baghdad said that holders of valid US visas, including Iraqi Special Immigrant Visas, would be allowed to travel to the United States.

“The US Government has determined that it is in the national interest to allow Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders to continue to travel to the United States,” the embassy official said, adding that the embassy had been in contact with the SIV applicants. </s> A new appeal to the judge that President Trump attacked on Twitter

Washington state has again sued President Donald Trump, asking the judge who blocked the president’s first travel ban targeting immigrants and visitors from several Muslim-majority countries to extend his restraining order to the revised order.

The new lawsuit — filed on Monday by Washington’s attorney general and joined by prosecutors representing California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon — asks for U.S. District Judge James Robart to stop the new travel ban from taking effect on Thursday.

The joint suit comes just days after Hawaii levied the first legal challenge to the new order.

President Trump issued the latest rule on March 6, adding some provisions to make it harder to challenge in court than the original. But the Monday lawsuit alleges that the new provisions, like the first ones, “will cause severe and immediate harms to the States, including our residents, our colleges and universities, our healthcare providers, and our businesses.”

Robart — whom President Trump bashed on Twitter for his ruling against the first executive order — gave the government a Tuesday deadline to respond to the new lawsuit. The Justice Department has not yet commented.

The states asked that Robart hold a hearing before Thursday to hear arguments from both sides, but the judge said he would not commit to that timeline. It’s not clear when a hearing may take place.

President Trump signed his first executive order travel ban, which was touted as an anti-terrorism measure, on Jan. 27. It blocked citizens from seven Muslim majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen — from entering the country for 90 days. It also shuttered the U.S.’s refugee program by banning asylum-seekers from Syria indefinitely and refugees from every other country for 120 days.

The ban, issued on a Friday afternoon, caused a weekend of chaos and confusion at the nation’s airports. Travelers from the seven newly banned countries were detained when they landed; some were green card holders, meaning that, while they hold passports from foreign countries, they had legal status to work and live in the U.S. Meanwhile, masses of protestors gathered outside many airports.

At least two dozen lawsuits were filed against that first travel ban. On Feb. 3, Robart acted on one of those suits, issuing a nationwide restraining order prohibiting federal agents from enforcing the ban. When President Trump administration challenged the judge’s decision, an appeals court refused to reinstate the ban.

The Trump administration unveiled its second executive order travel ban on March 6.

Still billed as a national security measure, the new order removed Iraq from the ban list (the White House cited the nation’s key role in helping the U.S. fight the militant group ISIS) and included a special provision to exempt green card holders from the ban. It retained the refugee ban, but did not specify that Syrians would be kept out for longer; instead, all refugees are barred from the U.S. indefinitely.

Legal experts said that the new order would be harder to challenge in court, since it ensures that legal U.S. residents won’t be affected.

A legal battle in Hawaii after a U.S. attorney purge

The new Monday lawsuit comes after an abrupt nationwide purge of U.S. attorneys — lawyers who represent the government in court — who were appointed by Barack Obama.

On Friday, the Trump administration asked the 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by the former president to resign, including Robert Capers, who served as the attorney for Eastern District of New York. Capers’ office had been tasked with defending President Trump’s first travel ban in a New York court — an assignment he punted down to his civil division chief.

The ousted U.S. attorneys’ deputies are now filling in as the Trump administration searches for replacements, so more junior prosecutors may continue to be the ones defending the second executive order.

While the Washington state lawsuit sits in legal limbo awaiting a responses from the government, the Hawaiian suit is progressing forward. The state sued last week, arguing that the ban harms its tourism industry, foreign students studying at Hawaiian universities, and its Muslim population.

The Justice Department responded to Hawaii’s suit on Monday, defending the ban by saying that the president has the power to “restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest” and again billing it as a terrorism-fighting maneuver.

As anticipated, the Trump administration argued that since the new order specifically protects legal U.S. residents, it doesn’t have the harmful effects that Hawaii claims it does.

“The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions,” the Department of Justice’s motion said.

A federal judge in Honolulu is set to hear arguments from both the government and the state of Hawaii on Wednesday. The judge can choose to block the executive order — like Seattle judge Robart did for the first ban — or allow it to take effect. </s> On Friday night, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily halted the enforcement of President Trump's executive order that bans travelers and immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries. By Saturday morning, some airlines had already begun acting on that judge's ruling, saying they would resume boarding travelers covered under the ban.

Qatar Airways, which services many of the predominantly Middle Eastern countries barred by Trump, announced that it had been directed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to board nationals with valid documents from Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

But Qatar Airways wasn't the only airline to release such an announcement Saturday. Lufthansa, Germany's largest airline, announced that on the basis of the federal court ruling it would also permit the affected travelers to fly to the U.S.

"However," Lufthansa was careful to note, "short notice changes to the immigration regulations may occur at any time. The final decision regarding immigration lies with the US authorities."

In Cairo, airport authorities received a notification Saturday from U.S. officials that they should also halt the enforcement of Trump's travel ban. And Reuters reports that Emirates and Etihad Airways said Saturday they would do so, as well.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., multiple media outlets report that CBP spoke with U.S. airlines on a conference call Friday, informing them that after the federal judge's ruling that it was "back to business as usual."

CNN adds: "The government was in the process of reinstating visas, the [airline] executive said, adding that airlines would start removing travel alerts from their websites and getting messages out to customers to notify them of the change."

Trump, for his part, tweeted a broadside Saturday morning against Judge James Robart's decision, which suspends enforcement of Trump's order while a case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota is heard in court.

"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.

In a subsequent tweet, Trump derided Robart as a "so-called judge," whose decision "is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, is the federal judge presiding over the U.S. District Court in western Washington state.

In a statement released Friday, the White House also called Robart's stay an "outrageous order." Later, as NPR's Rebecca Hersher noted, the statement was soon changed to remove the word "outrageous."

But the thrust of the message remained the same: The White House said the Justice Department will challenge the judge's decision.

Rebecca also reported that travelers blocked from their flights weren't the only ones to be affected by Trump's travel freeze:



Beyond the case brought by the states of Minnesota and Washington, three other states — Massachusetts, New York and Virginia — have also sued the federal government over Trump's executive order. </s> Airlines Again Board Travelers Barred By Travel Order, As Trump Vows To Fight

On Friday night, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily halted the enforcement of President Trump's executive order that bans travelers and immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries. By Saturday morning, some airlines had already begun acting on that judge's ruling, saying they would resume boarding travelers covered under the ban.

Qatar Airways, which services many of the predominantly Middle Eastern countries barred by Trump, announced that it had been directed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to board nationals with valid documents from Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

But Qatar Airways wasn't the only airline to release such an announcement Saturday. Lufthansa, Germany's largest airline, announced that on the basis of the federal court ruling it would also permit the affected travelers to fly to the U.S.

"However," Lufthansa was careful to note, "short notice changes to the immigration regulations may occur at any time. The final decision regarding immigration lies with the US authorities."

In Cairo, airport authorities received a notification Saturday from U.S. officials that they should also halt the enforcement of Trump's travel ban. And Reuters reports that Emirates and Etihad Airways said Saturday they would do so, as well.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., multiple media outlets report that CBP spoke with U.S. airlines on a conference call Friday, informing them that after the federal judge's ruling that it was "back to business as usual."

CNN adds: "The government was in the process of reinstating visas, the [airline] executive said, adding that airlines would start removing travel alerts from their websites and getting messages out to customers to notify them of the change."

Trump, for his part, tweeted a broadside Saturday morning against Judge James Robart's decision, which suspends enforcement of Trump's order while a case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota is heard in court.

"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.

In a subsequent tweet, Trump derided Robart as a "so-called judge," whose decision "is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, is the federal judge presiding over the U.S. District Court in western Washington state.

In a statement released Friday, the White House also called Robart's stay an "outrageous order." Later, as NPR's Rebecca Hersher noted, the statement was soon changed to remove the word "outrageous."

But the thrust of the message remained the same: The White House said the Justice Department will challenge the judge's decision.

Rebecca also reported that travelers blocked from their flights weren't the only ones to be affected by Trump's travel freeze:

Beyond the case brought by the states of Minnesota and Washington, three other states — Massachusetts, New York and Virginia — have also sued the federal government over Trump's executive order. </s> WASHINGTON, DC – The Justice Department on Saturday moved to appeal a decision that temporarily halted enforcement of President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The appeal concerns a late Friday decision by a US district court that halted the enforcement of Trump’s executive order. Trump’s policy banned travel to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, suspended all refugee entry to the US for 120 days and indefinitely suspended entry for Syrian refugees.

A notice of appeal was sent Saturday night to the US district court, where Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, presides in Seattle.

The Justice Department is expected to file its brief laying out its legal argument later Saturday night to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the appeal.

Hours after Robart’s ruling, the Department of Homeland Security announced it had suspended all actions to implement the immigration order and would resume standard inspections of travelers as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban. But it urged the Justice Department to challenge the ruling “at the earliest possible time.”

The three judges who will likely hear the appeal — assuming no one has to step aside over any conflicts — are: Judge William Canby, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter; Richard Clifton, who was appointed by Bush; and Michelle Friedland, a President Barack Obama appointee.

Robart, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota who sought to stop the order, said the states “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the executive order. ”

He said the order adversely affects residents in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency tells U.S. airlines that they should board travelers who had been blocked by the executive order addressed in Judge Robart's ruling.