The Justice Department on Saturday night filed a notice to appeal to a court order halting President Trump’s travel ban, requesting that implementation of the controversial executive order resume immediately.

The initial injunction, handed down by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, effectively paused all implementation of Mr. Trump’s signed executive order, which prohibited entry into the U.S. to all refugees and citizens from seven countries with Muslim-majority populations.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota against the Trump administration challenging the ban. Robart issued a temporary restraining order to pause its implementation until the case was heard, saying the states had legal standing to contest the president’s directive and had showed their case was likely to succeed.

The departments of State and Homeland Security complied immediately with the order by the Seattle-based judge.

On Saturday, the State Department issued a statement saying it had reinstated visas that were not physically canceled, so travel to the U.S. could resume for those banned under the executive order.

The Department of Homeland Security has also instructed its employees to suspend any actions carrying out the ban, including the detention and removal of travelers. Traveler inspections, DHS said, would continue “in accordance with standard policy and procedure.” </s> SEATTLE — A U.S. judge on Friday temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump’s ban on travellers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries after Washington state and Minnesota urged a nationwide hold on the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled that the states had standing to challenge Trump’s order, which government lawyers disputed, and said they showed their case was likely to succeed.

“The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury,” Robart said.

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

Washington became the first state to sue over the order that temporarily bans travel for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and suspends the U.S. refugee program.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said this week that the travel ban significantly harms residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the suit two days later.

After the ruling, Ferguson said people from the affected countries can now apply for entry to the U.S.

“Judge Robart’s decision, effective immediately ... puts a halt to President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful executive order,” Ferguson said. “The law is a powerful thing — it has the ability to hold everybody accountable to it, and that includes the president of the United States.”

Gillian M. Christensen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

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

The two states won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which aims to permanently block Trump’s order. Court challenges have been filed nationwide from states and advocacy groups.

Up to 60,000 foreigners from the seven majority-Muslim countries had their visas cancelled 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.

Washington and Minnesota’s 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 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 says.

Ferguson said the order is harming 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.

Lawyers for Washington state said another hearing was expected in the next few weeks. </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> 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> 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> 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> WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Sunday denied the Justice Department's request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump's ban on accepting certain travelers and all refugees.

The Trump administration had appealed a temporary order restraining the ban nationwide, saying a federal judge in Seattle overreached by "second-guessing" the president on a matter of national security.

The appeals court's denial of an immediate stay means the legal fight over the ban will continue for days at least. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco asked challengers of the ban to respond by early Monday, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by the evening.

Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the administration, 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.

"The power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute, delegated by Congress to the executive branch of government and largely immune from judicial control," according to government's filing.

The government has suspended the ban's enforcement in compliance with order of the order of U.S. District Judge James Robart. His ruling was an extraordinary setback for the new president, who only a week ago acted to suspend America's refugee program and halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries that the government said raise terrorism concerns.

Trump mocked Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, calling him a "so-called judge" whose "ridiculous" ruling "will be overturned."

"Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision," he tweeted.

Trump's direct attack recalled his diatribes during the campaign against the federal judge of Mexican heritage who oversaw lawsuits alleging fraud by Trump University, and may prompt some tough questions as these challenges rise through the courts.

But the government's brief repeatedly asserted that presidential authority cannot be questioned by judges once the nation's security is invoked.

Congress "vests complete discretion in the President" to impose conditions on alien entry, so Trump isn't legally required to justify such decisions, it said. His executive order said the ban was necessary for "protecting against terrorism," and that "is sufficient to end the matter."

The Justice Department asked that Robart's order be put on hold pending resolution of the appeal, so that the ban can "ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism."

The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompted protests across the United States and led to multiple court challenges. Demonstrations took place outside the White House, in New York and near his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where Trump attended an American Red Cross fundraising gala.

"We'll win," Trump told reporters Saturday night. "For the safety of the country, we'll win."

The State Department said on Friday that as many as 60,000 foreigners from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen 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 will now be allowed in. A State Department official said in an email obtained by The Associated Press that the government was "focusing on booking refugee travel" through Feb. 17 and working to have arrivals resume as soon as Monday.

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.

Hearings have also been held in court challenges nationwide. Washington state and Minnesota argued that the temporary ban and the global suspension of the U.S. refugee program harmed residents and effectively mandated discrimination.

In his written order Friday, Robart said it's not the court's job to "create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches," but rather, to make sure that an action taken by the government "comports with our country's laws."

Robart's order also imposes harm on U.S. citizens "by thwarting the legal effect of the public's chosen representative," it says.

Associated Press writers Michael Warren in Atlanta, Alicia A. Caldwell, Mark Sherman, Matthew Lee and Jessica Gresko in Washington, Martha Bellisle in Seattle, William Mathis and Julie Walker in New York, contributed to this report. </s> U.S. District Judge James Robart temporarily suspended a controversial executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The Seattle Times reports that the ruling made in a federal court on Friday was a major victory for a lawsuit filed by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Ferguson said. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

The lawsuit, filed on January 30, claims that Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations violates the U.S. Constitution. The nationwide travel ban was put on hold after the State of Minnesota joined the lawsuit requesting a restraining order.

The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, failed to convince the Seattle federal judge that Trump’s executive order has not harmed U.S. citizens. The judge granting the suspension of Trump’s executive order on immigration was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration played down reports that chaos in airports after Trump signed the executive order was as bad as it looked. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the damage was minimal.

“Three hundred and twenty-five thousand people flew into this country from airports and 109 people were affected and slowed down in their travel,” Spicer said. “I understand that is an inconvenience, but at the end of the day that is a small price to pay as opposed to somebody losing their life because a terrorist attack was admitted.”

Multiple reports have emerged contradicting statements made by the Trump administration. It’s unclear exactly how many visas were suspended after Trump signed the controversial executive order, but the number could be as high as 100,000 and as low as 50,000.

The suspension of Trump’s executive order in a federal court was a result of Washington and Minnesota arguing that U.S. citizens have been injured by Trump’s executive order.

Washington and Minnesota aren’t the only two states winning legal battles against the executive order suspending the U.S. refugee program and imposing a travel ban for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.

New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia filed separate lawsuits this week. Each state’s attorney general has the legal power to file broad lawsuits on behalf of their state’s citizens.

Politico reports that a federal court in Virginia on Friday rejected efforts made by the Justice Department to settle a case on behalf of green card holders detained at Dulles Airport.

“It’s obvious that [Trump’s executive order] put hundreds of thousands of people into a state of great discomfort,” U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said. “People are really upset.”

Chicago Tribune reports that Ferguson is calling for provisions to Trump’s executive order to be thrown out.

The biggest unanswered question is, what happens next? Friday’s ruling in Seattle is a major defeat for Trump’s executive order moving forward. The case will likely be appealed by the Trump administration. It also likely the case will ultimately make it to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling against Trump’s executive order a major victory for all Americans.

“This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us who believe this un-American executive order will not make us safer,” Schumer said.

A visa that was rescinded after Trump’s executive order could potentially be reinstated very soon. The immense legal implications of a federal judge temporarily overturning an executive order signed by the president will no doubt bring clarity to the future of Trump’s travel ban sooner than later. </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
The Department of Homeland Security says it has stopped enforcing the executive order per Judge James Robart's ruling in State of Washington v. Trump. The State Department activates visas that had been previously suspended because of this order.