US judge rules Trump’s travel ban unlawful
US District Judge James Robart on Thursday ruled that the President’s controversial executive order that bans all travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries is lawful.
The order has been blocked in federal courts in Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia.
It would have imposed a nationwide travel ban on the citizens of the seven countries, which are Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The ban was blocked in a pair of separate appeals from Washington state, the highest court in the country.
Robart issued a scathing ruling that said the ban is unconstitutional and should be immediately revoked.
He noted that the president did not list the countries by name, but instead said the United States seeks to protect national security interests.
The judge noted that there are more than 100,000 refugees and migrants from the countries.
He also said the order is “not narrowly tailored to serve the compelling national security interest at issue.”
Robart also cited the president’s assertion that the order was needed to prevent terrorist attacks.
He said there is “a substantial and growing body of evidence” that shows it does not.
The travel ban is “an overbroad and overbroad executive action” that violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, Robart said.
The ruling is the first time the court has found that the executive order violates the Establishment Clause.
Robarts ruling came after a brief legal battle in Maryland, where the Trump administration asked for an emergency stay to stop the order.
In an unusual move, Robarts order said the states should be allowed to proceed in court to block the travel ban.
RobART said in his ruling: “The government’s claim that this order is necessary to protect the national security and foreign policy interests of the United Kingdom is not credible.
The President’s claim is that this executive action is needed to protect his national security.
The Court rejects that argument.
The Government’s claim, as the District Court noted, is not only inconsistent with the Constitution but it is also inconsistent with common sense.
The Administration’s position is that, as it has stated, this order was issued as a last resort and to address a security threat posed by foreign nationals who entered the United State under false pretenses.
We conclude that the District Courts’ determination that this is not so is not in conflict with the President, his constitutional authority, or the statutory language of the Constitution.”
Robarts said he has no plans to review his decision, which will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration argued that the travel order was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Robetts order said that the administration was relying on the Supreme, Ninth and Tenth Circuits of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
But Robart disagreed.
He found the president had failed to show that the ban was motivated by the specific security interests of America.
He wrote: “A reasonable reading of the Government’s argument, however, is that it is motivated by a broader interest in national security, namely, the protection of American citizens from terrorist attacks by foreign nations.
The mere fact that a foreign nation is a threat does not justify the blanket ban.”
The order was challenged by the states in the federal courts.
They argued that it was not narrowly tailored, violated the constitution, and that the state courts had failed in their duty to give effect to the President of the UNITED STATES’ authority to establish national security policies.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said that he did not think Robarts decision was a final ruling on the legality of the ban.
He argued that there was still a long way to go.
Reinhardt wrote: The President has not shown that his national-security interests justify the broad, indefinite travel ban as the President has claimed.
The United States has a duty to protect its citizens from the danger of terrorism.
It is time to let the courts decide whether the President was correct in his assertion that he was protecting national security by imposing this order.
The decision is the second major legal challenge to the travel restriction.
On January 27, a federal judge in Texas blocked the Trump Administration from enforcing the travel restrictions, which were instituted by President Donald Trump after the November election.
In the Texas case, Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that he does not have jurisdiction to hear the case because it is “voluntary” and not a “custodial proceeding.”
He also dismissed the lawsuit by three other states challenging the ban, saying they did not have the resources to fight the case.
In his dissent, Hanen noted that a “plurality of federal district courts have concluded that the federal Government has a legitimate interest in controlling immigration, including by barring aliens from entry into the United