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> 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. </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> WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have told a federal appellate court that restoring President Donald Trump’s ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries would “unleash chaos again.”

The filing with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco came early Monday after the White House said it expected the federal courts to reinstate the ban.

Washington and Minnesota said their underlying lawsuit was strong and a nationwide temporary restraining order was appropriate. If the appellate court reinstated Trump’s ban the states said the “ruling would reinstitute those harms, separating families, stranding our university students and faculty, and barring travel.”

The rapid-fire legal maneuvers by the two states were accompanied by briefs filed by the technology industry arguing that the travel ban would harm their companies by making it more difficult to recruit employees. Tech giants like Apple and Google, along with Uber, filed their arguments with the court late Sunday.

Trump’s executive order was founded on a claim of national security, but lawyers for the two states told the appellate court the administration’s move hurts residents, businesses and universities and is unconstitutional.

The next opportunity for Trump’s team to argue in favor of the ban will come in the form of a response to the Washington state and Minnesota filings. The 9th Circuit ordered the U.S. Justice Department to file its briefs by 6 p.m. EST Monday. It had already turned down a Justice request to set aside immediately a Seattle judge’s ruling that put a temporary hold on the ban nationwide.

In the latest filing, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota said: “Defendants now ask this Court to unleash chaos again by staying the district court order. The Court should decline.”

That ruling last Friday prompted an ongoing Twitter rant by Trump, who dismissed U.S. District Court Judge James Robart as a “so-called judge” and his decision “ridiculous.”

Trump renewed his Twitter attacks against Robart on Sunday. “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!” He followed with another tweet saying he had instructed the Homeland Security Department to check people coming into the country but that “the courts are making the job very difficult!”

US suspends enforcement of travel ban, DOJ moves to appeal

Vice President Mike Pence said Sunday that “we don’t appoint judges to our district courts to conduct foreign policy or to make decisions about the national security.” Trump himself had offered an optimistic forecast the previous night, telling reporters during a weekend at his private club in Florida: “We’ll win. For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

The government had told the appeals court that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

Congress “vests complete discretion” in the president to impose conditions on entry of foreigners to the United States, and that power is “largely immune from judicial control,” according to the court filing.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, predicted the appeals court would not have the last word. “I have no doubt that it will go to the Supreme Court, and probably some judgments will be made whether this president has exceed his authority or not,” she said.

In his ruling, Robart said it was not the court’s job to “create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches,” but to make sure that an action taken by the government “comports with our country’s laws.”

Whatever the outcome and however the case drags on, a president who was used to getting his way in private business is finding, weeks into his new job that obstacles exist to quickly fulfilling one of his chief campaign pledges.

“The president is not a dictator,” said Feinstein, D-Calif. “He is the chief executive of our country. And there is a tension between the branches of government.”

The Twitter attacks on Robart — appointed by President George W. Bush — prompted scolding from fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

“We don’t have so-called judges,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. “We don’t have so-called senators. We don’t have so-called presidents. We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

However, Pence defended the president, saying he “can criticize anybody he wants.” The vice president added that he believes the American people “find it very refreshing that they not only understand this president’s mind, but they understand how he feels about things.”

Trump’s order applied to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen — Muslim-majority countries that the administration said raise terrorism concerns. The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompting protests across the United States and leading to multiple court challenges.

The State Department said last week that as many as 60,000 foreigners from those seven countries had had their visas canceled. After Robart’s decision, the department reversed course and said they could travel to the U.S. if they had a valid visa.

The department also advised refugee aid agencies that refugees set to travel before Trump signed his order would now be allowed in.

The Homeland Security Department no longer was directing airlines to prevent visa-holders affected by Trump’s order from boarding U.S.-bound planes. The agency said it had “suspended any and all actions” related to putting in place Trump’s order.

Pence appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’ “Face the Nation,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday. McConnell was on CNN, Feinstein spoke on Fox and Sasse was interviewed by ABC.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. </s> The Department of Justice has filed an appeal against a federal judge in Washington state’s ruling that temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

The ruling, handed down Friday by Judge James Robart, came as a result of a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota to halt the order, which temporarily barred travelers and refugees from seven Muslim countries from entering the U.S.

According to the Associated Press, the request for an emergency stay, which would reinstate the order, was filed Saturday night in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This move was largely expected after White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement Friday night calling the ruling an “outrageous order” and saying the administration would file an appeal “at the earliest possible time.”

Trump also blasted the decision on Twitter Saturday morning, saying it spelled “big trouble” and challenging the authority of “this so-called judge.”

Trump also referenced a ruling by a Boston judge earlier Friday that would have allowed an injunction against the ban to expire Sunday, allowing authorities to reinstitute the travel restrictions. Robart’s decision overrode this ruling and was granted on a nationwide basis, per ABC News.

“Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?” Trump wrote on Twitter.

However, the appeal is also likely to create confusion as the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department began giving airlines clearance to accept U.S. visa-holders from the affected countries onto flights on Saturday morning. According to the Associated Press, this has led to a crush of people attempting to enter the country while the order is no longer in effect.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is headquartered in San Francisco, but also has facilities in Seattle.

This is a developing story and will be updated with more details. </s> In an unusual set of oral arguments by conference call late Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard and questioned attorneys for the federal government and for the States of Washington and Minnesota over the government’s plea to set aside a district judge’s temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s travel ban.

The government had the burden of convincing the judges that letting the TRO remain in place while the district court heard the case would represent “irreparable harm” to the national interest and would also interfere with the president’s exercise of congressionally delegated authority over immigration law. The Justice Department’s August Fientje heavily emphasized that authority in his argument, and the more specific congressional warrant for looking closely at the seven countries-of-origin that are the focus of the travel ban.

Fientje’s argument that the states involved did not have proper standing to bring the suit—particularly with respect to refugees and visa applicants who had never been in the U.S. (the major groups affected by the ban after it was relaxed to exclude those with permanent residence status)—drew much skeptical questioning from the judges, to the exclusion of the merits of the case. Washington State Solicitor General Noah Purcell ran into trouble with at least one of the judges—Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee to the 9th circuit—for assertions that a ban affecting a relatively small percentage of Muslims overseas was necessarily religiously motivated.

But that same judge upbraided Fientje for suggesting that evidence of an intent to impose a travel ban on Muslims by the president and at least one advisor was just “newspaper articles.”

Both lawyers sought to encourage the judges on the 9th circuit panel — Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee, William Canby, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and Clifton — to tailor a ruling in a way that gave its side the advantage in what happens next. Purcell sought a ruling that would let district court judge James Robart proceed with a hearing on the travel ban without the government interfering via an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, which the government will most definitely try to pursue if the appeal court denies its petition for a stay of the temporary restraining order, or TRO. Fientje repeatedly asked that even if the judges thought the states had standing to bring suit on behalf of actual residents, they should knock out the TRO for people who had not been in the U.S.

The New York Times’ Charlie Savage probably spoke for most listeners in making a perilous tentative prediction based on the oral arguments:

But all that would mean is that the case would for an instant at least proceed at the district court level, even as Trump’s lawyers sought to drag SCOTUS in to stop it and (at least temporarily) restore the travel ban.

It’s unclear when the 9th circuit panel will make its ruling — though some time this week is a good guess. It would be wise to take any cheers and jeers for whatever it does with a shaker of salt. This case probably has a long way to go in the courts, and both sides will obviously keep trying to score points in the court of public opinion as well. </s> SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court in San Francisco said Thursday it will release its ruling by the end of the business day in the legal fight over whether to reinstate President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

A panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is deciding whether to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there's no chance Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration. </s> SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

The panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.

“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world’s Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there’s no chance Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration. </s> [AP] "A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

During his remarks at a law enforcement conference, Trump said the courts blocking his divisive immigration order "seem to be so political." ..."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds a hearing, by telephone, for the U.S. Justice Department and plaintiffs (states of Washington and Minnesota) arguments whether or not to reinstate the travel ban suspended on Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart. Judge Michelle Friedland states the court will work to deliver its decision quickly.