US Justice Department defends ‘lawful’ Trump travel ban

Appeals courts are generally leery of upending the status quo, which in this case is the lower court’s suspension of the ban. Lawyers for Minnesota and 17 other states are reportedly ready to back the case. The court may then decide to keep the restraining order in place, or vacate the order, which would be a victory for the president.

About 60,000 visas that had been canceled were deemed valid after Robart issued his restraining order.

Days after President Donald Trump tweeted disparaging remarks about the judge who blocked a temporary travel ban on refugees and citizens from predominantly Muslim countries, House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump was “respecting the process”.

But two days after Trump introduced the controversial order, a court in Seattle stayed it.

The president said on Twitter, “Just can not believe a judge would put our country in such peril”.

“That’s not what the order does here”, Flantje said, adding, after being pressed, that there would likely be a route “to make a constitutional challenge if there were such an order”.

Another judge Willian Canby asked if the President could simply say the U.S. will not admit Muslims into the countries. Administration attorneys countered that Trump issued the order within his legal authority and that it was necessary to protect the country from terrorist attacks. “But either they were made or they were not”, Clifton said.

“The Washington order could get reversed”, Gelernt said.

The state of Washington’s solicitor general, Noah Purcell, is arguing for the states, and August Flentje, from the Justice Department, is arguing for the federal government.

The executive order has been the most consequential act of a young and aggressive administration that wants to minimize America’s engagement with the world. Trump has said the travel measures are created to protect the country against the threat of terrorism.

“We’re supposed to take your word for it?” Still, Flentje was asked if the court is supposed to ignore newspaper articles and information that everyone knows, even if campaign statements shouldn’t be given too much weight. “That’s not the standard”. But Trump denounced the ruling of the “so-called judge” in starkly personal terms, and the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit, the nation’s most liberal appeals court with jurisdiction over western states.

Judge Michelle T. Friedland demanded to know what evidence there was to support Mr. Trump’s judgment.