Trump to fight block on ban
Appeal planned as president slams ‘so-called’ judge
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The Trump administration moved Saturday night to appeal a U.S. District Court ruling that blocked the president’s immigration order, setting the stage for a legal showdown over his authority to tighten the nation’s borders in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism.
The brief notice of appeal came after a chaotic day in which the government complied with the district court’s ruling by allowing the entry of refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, even as President Donald Trump unleashed a fusillade of criticism at the ruling and the judge who had issued it.
At airports around the world, small numbers of travelers from the previously banned countries began venturing trips to the United States, knowing that the judge’s ruling
could be overturned at any time. The State Department reversed its cancellation of visas for people from the seven affected countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — and aid groups scrambled to take advantage of what they acknowledged might be a brief window for refugees to enter the United States.
On Saturday night, as Trump arrived at a Red Cross gala at Mara-Lago, his waterfront Florida resort, where he was spending the first getaway weekend of his presidency, reporters asked him if he was confident that he would prevail in the government’s appeal. “We’ll win,” he replied. “For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”
The legal maneuvering led Trump to lash out at Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court in Seattle throughout the day, prompting criticism that the president had failed to respect the judicial branch and its power to exert a check on his authority.
In an early-morning Twitter post, Trump wrote, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Agencies quick to comply
Late Saturday, the Justice Department filed papers saying that it will seek to have the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals block the judge’s decision.
Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declared in his ruling Friday that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected countries.
Robart’s ruling also barred the administration from enforcing its limits on accepting refugees. The State Department said Saturday that refugees, including Syrians, could begin arriving as early as Monday. Syrians had faced an indefinite ban under the executive order. His ruling applied nationwide.
It was not clear how-quickly the 9th Circuit court would move. In a note posted Saturday night on its electronic filing system, the court said it would soon issue an order setting a briefing schedule. In ordinary cases, the first brief would not be filed for almost a month, but the federal government will no doubt ask the appeals court to move much faster. In emergencies, the appeals court’s rules sometimes allow a single judge to act alone or to convene a threejudge panel by telephone.
Despite Trump’s vehement criticism of the lower court’s ruling and the certainty that it would be appealed, the government agencies at the center of the issue, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, moved quickly to comply.
Lawrence Bartlett, the State Department’s director of refugee resettlement, wrote in a departmental email that officials were working to rebook travel for refugees who had previously been scheduled to leave for the United States over a three-week period ending Feb. 17. A State Department official said the extended time frame accounted for the fact that some refugees would have to make difficult journeys back to airports from refugee camps.
Until there is a new order from the courts, the official said, the department will go back to vetting refugees, booking their travel and bringing them to the United States. A United Nations spokesman, Leonard Doyle, said about 2,000 refugees were ready to travel.
Airlines, citing U.S. customs officials, were telling passengers from the seven countries that their visas were once again valid. Those carriers, however, have yet to report an uptick in travel, and there appeared to be no rush to airports by visa holders in Europe and the Middle East intent on making their way to the United States.
Etihad Airways, the United Arab Emirates’ national carrier, said in a statement: “Following advice received today from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection unit at Abu Dhabi Airport, the airline will again be accepting nationals from the seven countries named last week.” Other Arab carriers, including Qatar Airways, issued similar statements. Differing advice
A group of advocacy organizations that had worked to overturn the executive order and help immigrants and refugees stranded at airports issued a statement Saturday afternoon encouraging travelers “to rebook travel to the United States immediately.”
“We have been in contact with hundreds of people impacted by the ban, and we are urging them to get on planes as quickly as possible,” Clare Kane, a law student intern at the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, one of the groups involved, said in a statement.
But some officials were being more cautious, advising travelers to wait for further clarity.
The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said it was waiting for additional guidance from Washington. “We don’t knowwhat the effect will be, but we’re working to get more information,” the embassy told The Associated Press in a statement.
The Department of Homeland Security said it had suspended implementation of the order, including procedures to flag travelers from the countries designated in Trump’s order. It said it would resume standard inspection procedures. But in a statement, the department defended the order as “lawful and appropriate.”
In his first statement on the matter Friday evening, White House press secretary Sean Spicer described the judge’s action as “outrageous.” Minutes later, the White House issued a new statement deleting the word outrageous.
Trump’s Twitter post showed no such restraint. It recalled the attacks he made during the presi- dential campaign on a federal district judge in California, who was presiding over a class-action lawsuit involving Trump University. Criticism called dangerous
Democrats said the president’s criticism of Robart was a dangerous development. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump seemed “intent on precipitating a constitutional crisis.” Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, whose state filed the suit that led to the injunction, said the attack was “beneath the dignity” of the presidency and could “lead America to calamity.”
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a statement that Trump’s outburst could weigh on the confirmation process for Judge Neil Gorsuch, the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
The Washington state case was filed Monday, and it was assigned to Robart that day. He asked for briefs on whether the state had standing to sue, with the last one due Thursday. On Wednesday, Minnesota joined the suit.
On Friday evening, Robart issued a temporary restraining order, requiring the government to revert to its previous immigration policies as the case moved forward. He found that the states and their citizens had been injured by Trump’s order.
“The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” Robart wrote. He said the states had been hurt because the order affected their public universities and their tax bases.
Still, Robart’s order left many questions, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.
“Does the executive order violate the equal protection of the laws, amount to an establishment of religion, violate rights of free exercise, or deprive aliens of due process of law?” Blackman asked. “Who knows? The analysis is bare bones, and leaves the court of appeals, as well as the Supreme Court, with no basis to determine whether the nationwide injunction was proper.”