US Judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump‘s ban on travelers and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, drawing inspiration from two states that have urged the government to maintain law and order that has launched legal battles Across the country.
US Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled that the state of Washington and Minnesota had the right to challenge the Trump order, which government lawyers challenged, and said they showed Their case was likely to succeed.
“The state has fulfilled its burden by demonstrating immediate and irreparable wounds,” US Judge Robart said.
The order of Trump last week has sparked protests throughout the country and confusion at the airports, with some travelers being detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.
It was not immediately clear what happened next for people who had waited years to receive visas to come to America. The Department of Homeland Security did not comment, but the State Department had already ordered the revocation of visas from the seven countries.
Washington became the first state to prosecute an order temporarily banning the travel of people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen and suspending the US refugee program, United.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the travel ban banned residents significantly and effectively requires discrimination. Minnesota joined the case two days later. After the decision, Mr. Ferguson said that people from affected countries can now apply for entry into the United States.
“Robart J.’s decision, immediately in force … puts an end to President Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal order,” said Mr. Ferguson. “The law is a powerful thing, it has the ability to hold everyone accountable to it, and that includes the President of the United States.”
Gillian M. Christensen, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The decision of the judge could be appealed to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal prosecutors had argued that Congress gave the President the power to make decisions about national security and the entry of immigrants.
Both states have obtained a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which aims to permanently block Trump’s order. Judicial challenges have been filed throughout the country by states and defense groups.
In court, Solicitor General Noah Purcell of Washington said the legal challenge of the state was how the President’s order targeted Islam.
Mr. Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and the travel ban was an effort to make good on that promise campaign, Ms. Purcell said the judge.
“You see a distinction between campaign statements and the executive order,” Judge Robart asked. “I think that’s a bit of a way of saying that the president is anti-Muslim based on what he said in New Hampshire in June.”
Ms. Purcell said there was an “overwhelming amount of evidence” to show that the order was directed against the Muslim religion, which is unconstitutional.
click here for more world news
When the judge questioned federal lawyer Michelle Bennett, he repeatedly questioned the rationale for the order.
Judge Robart, who was appointed a federal judge by President George W. Bush, asked whether there had been terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Mr. Trump’s order since 9/11. Bennett said she did not know.
“The answer is zero,” said Justice Robart. “You are here saying that we have to protect these people from those countries, and there is no support for that.”
Ms. Bennett argued that states can not prosecute on behalf of citizens and states have not shown that the order was causing irreparable harm.
US Judge Robart disagreed.
“The state has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating immediate and irreparable damage,” he said. “I think the TRO is in the public interest.”
Up to 60,000 foreigners of the seven Muslim majority countries have been canceled because of the executive order, the State Department said on Friday. This figure contradicts a statement by a Department of Justice lawyer the same day at a Virginia hearing on the ban. The lawyer in this case said about 100,000 visas had been revoked.
The State Department said the highest figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were in fact exempt from the travel ban, as well as expired visas. Mr. Ferguson, a Democrat, said the order is harm Washington residents, businesses and its educational system.
Companies based in Washington, Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the efforts of the state to stop the order. They say it hurts their operations, too. Washington state lawyers said another hearing was scheduled in the coming weeks.