On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart put a nationwide hold on President Donald Trump‘s executive order barring travel from seven Muslim countries. The court’s temporary restraining order came after the states of Washington and Minnesota sued the Trump administration over the travel ban. Late Monday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Justice fired back, and filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the judge’s order, blasting it as “vastly over broad.” They’ve asked the 9th Circuit to lift the temporary restraining order or at the very least limit it to the people who were previously admitted as “aliens” who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future.
The 15-page DOJ response also says that the President’s executive order “is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees.” The DOJ attorneys specifically referenced a Boston’s judge ruling that found that the executive had a “facially legitimate and bona fide” justification for the ban.
The brief states:
Congress has granted the President broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” into the United States, and independently broad discretion over the refugee program under 8 U.S.C. § 1157. The exclusion of aliens is also “a fundamental act of sovereignty inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” (some citations omitted)
Further, the Trump attorneys contend if the 9th Circuit rules against them that would mean “that the President would be statutorily disabled from barring the entry of nationals of a country with which the United States was at war—a result that would raise serious constitutional questions, which is itself a sufficient reason to reject the State’s reading.”
On Friday, Judge Robart wrote when he first granted the order that “The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury,” making it appropriate for him to put a stop to the order while the case is still pending. Washington and Minnesota agreed in their brief, filed with the Ninth Circuit early Monday morning, saying that reinstating the ban would “unleash chaos again.”
Now that both sides have filed their responses to the injunction, it remains to be seen whether the Court of Appeals will uphold Judge Robart’s injunction. Both sides will have an oral argument before the 9th Circuit which is scheduled for 3:00 pm tomorrow.
LawNewz.com will update this post with more information as we get it.
