Federal Judge James Robart ruled against government lawyers’ claims that US states did not have the standing to challenge Mr Trump’s executive order. Last week’s order has led to protests and confusion at US airports.
Customs officials have told US airlines that they can resume boarding banned travellers while a legal case is heard. Gulf carrier Qatar Airways told Reuters news agency it would start accepting all passengers with valid travel documents. The administration, however, could again block them if it were to win an emergency stay. The justice department says it will appeal against the Seattle ruling.
In a statement, the White House described Mr Trump’s directive as “lawful and appropriate”.
“The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people,” the statement said. Mr Trump’s order suspended the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days. There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. Anyone arriving from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan or Yemen faces a 90-day visa suspension.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the executive order since it was signed by Mr Trump a week ago but this is the first time a nationwide order has been granted – temporarily voiding the president’s ban.
But the order could be reinstated once the justice department files a motion to quash the Seattle court’s ruling. In a statement the White House initially called it “outrageous”, before withdrawing that description.
The executive order caused chaos when it was suddenly introduced a week ago – some travellers arriving in the US were turned back, and protests broke out at airports across the country. The Seattle judge issued his order on the grounds that the travel ban could be unconstitutional – an argument that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. An estimated 60,000 people from the seven countries affected had their visas cancelled because of the ban. The customs department said those visas would now be reissued, and the people involved were free to travel to the US. The lawsuit against President Trump’s ban was initially filed by Washington State, with Minnesota joining later. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson described the ban as unconstitutional. “Folks who had visas, folks who were allowed to travel were denied that right without any due process whatsoever – that’s un-American and unconstitutional,” he said in a BBC interview.
The order, Mr Ferguson added, also violated freedom of religion rights. “You cannot prefer one religion over another,” he told the BBC. Mr Trump has argued that his directive is aimed at protecting America. Critics respond by saying that most terror attacks in the US in recent years have been carried out by home-grown militants. The president said visas would once again be issued once “the most secure policies” were in place, and denied it was a ban on Muslims. Courts in at least four other states – Virginia, New York, Massachusetts and Michigan – are hearing cases challenging Mr Trump’s executive order.
Earlier on Friday, a judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary ban that prohibited the detention or removal of foreigners legally authorised to come to America. The ban – which only applied to Massachusetts – is due to expire on 5 February.
Bush-appointee judge
CNN adds: The order by Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, is a significant setback for Trump’s controversial travel ban and created another round of chaos nationwide over the policy’s legality. “The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripartite government,” Robart wrote in the order.
James L. Robart has been a federal judge for the US District Court for the western district of Washington state since 2004 when President George W. Bush nominated him to the federal bench. He assumed senior status in 2016. Born in 1947 in Seattle, Robart graduated from Whitman College in 1969 and Georgetown Law School in 1973, where he was administrative editor of the Georgetown Law Journal, according to his official biography on the US District Court’s website. He was in private practice in Seattle with the firm Lane Powell Moss & Miller from 1973 to 2004, moving to the position of managing partner from 2003-2004.
During his confirmation hearing, Washington Democratic Senator Patty Murray remarked how he had “a generous sense of community service through his work with at-risk and special needs youth.”
Robart is the former president and trustee for the Seattle Children’s Home, which handles mental health needs for children and their families throughout Seattle and the state according to their website. He’s also worked extensively with the Children’s Home Society of Washington, which provides services to families in order to improve children’s lives. Robart has sparked controversy before. According to a video posted on the US Courts website, Robart can be seen saying that “black lives matter” in a court hearing in August 2016.
The remarks came during a hearing for a 2012 lawsuit demanding the Seattle Police Department adopt changes after the Department of Justice found “reasonable cause to believe that SPD had engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force.” The DOJ report also identified “serious concerns about certain practices that could have a disparate impact on minority communities.” During his confirmation hearing, Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, Robart remarked how Robart had done pro bono work and also represented refugees during his career.
“He has been active in the representation of the disadvantaged through his work with Evergreen Legal Services and the independent representation of Southeast Asian refugees.”
He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. It was also during his confirmation hearing that Robart spoke about using the courts to help people who felt the legal system was stacked against them.
“I was introduced to people who in many times felt that the legal system was stacked against them or was unfair. And one of the things, I think, that my time there helped accomplish was to show them that the legal system was set up for their benefit and that it could be, if properly used, an opportunity for them to seek redress if they had been wronged.” Robart added he would treat everyone with “dignity and respect” in his courtroom.
“Working with people who have an immediate need and an immediate problem that you are able to help with is the most satisfying aspect of the practice of law. I think in terms of-if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, I will take that experience to the courtroom with me, recognize that you need to treat everyone with dignity and with respect, and to engage them so that when they leave the courtroom they feel like they had a fair trial.”
