SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Trump DOJ Loses Again as Federal Courts Advance Travel Ban Hearings
"I thought the president said 'we'll see you in court'?"
Feb 14, 2017
A federal judge in Seattle has rejected a request from the Trump administration to delay a hearing on the president's travel ban, meaning the case is set to go ahead as scheduled in the next few days.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robart on Monday dismissed the call from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to delay a hearing on President Donald Trump's motive for implementing the executive order in January that banned travelers to the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim countries and halted entry for refugees for 120 days, and for Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Robart said the issue was "time-sensitive" and should not be held up, and cited Trump's own tweets in his decision, reportedly stating, "I thought the president said 'we'll see you in court'?"
Also Monday, a separate federal court in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction against the application of the ban to Virginia residents and those with connections to state-run institutions. The injunction will stay in place until it can be fully argued in court.
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, of Arlington, wrote (pdf) that the ban was a "centerpiece of the president's campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered."
"The 'specific sequence of events' leading to the adoption of the [executive order, or EO] bolsters the Commonwealth's argument that the EO was not motivated by rational national security concerns," she wrote, adding that the government has "not offered any evidence to identify the national security concerns that allegedly prompted this EO, or even described the process by which the president concluded that this action was necessary."
Both developments constitute yet more notable setbacks for Trump, who is already on a losing streak over the ban. Federal courts throughout the country have ruled against and halted portions of his executive order amid a flurry of civil rights lawsuits.
The order prompted widespread protests at airports throughout the country.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
criminal justice systemimmigrationrefugeesreligionseattletrump resistancetrumpismus department of justicevirginia
A federal judge in Seattle has rejected a request from the Trump administration to delay a hearing on the president's travel ban, meaning the case is set to go ahead as scheduled in the next few days.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robart on Monday dismissed the call from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to delay a hearing on President Donald Trump's motive for implementing the executive order in January that banned travelers to the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim countries and halted entry for refugees for 120 days, and for Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Robart said the issue was "time-sensitive" and should not be held up, and cited Trump's own tweets in his decision, reportedly stating, "I thought the president said 'we'll see you in court'?"
Also Monday, a separate federal court in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction against the application of the ban to Virginia residents and those with connections to state-run institutions. The injunction will stay in place until it can be fully argued in court.
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, of Arlington, wrote (pdf) that the ban was a "centerpiece of the president's campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered."
"The 'specific sequence of events' leading to the adoption of the [executive order, or EO] bolsters the Commonwealth's argument that the EO was not motivated by rational national security concerns," she wrote, adding that the government has "not offered any evidence to identify the national security concerns that allegedly prompted this EO, or even described the process by which the president concluded that this action was necessary."
Both developments constitute yet more notable setbacks for Trump, who is already on a losing streak over the ban. Federal courts throughout the country have ruled against and halted portions of his executive order amid a flurry of civil rights lawsuits.
The order prompted widespread protests at airports throughout the country.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A federal judge in Seattle has rejected a request from the Trump administration to delay a hearing on the president's travel ban, meaning the case is set to go ahead as scheduled in the next few days.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robart on Monday dismissed the call from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to delay a hearing on President Donald Trump's motive for implementing the executive order in January that banned travelers to the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim countries and halted entry for refugees for 120 days, and for Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Robart said the issue was "time-sensitive" and should not be held up, and cited Trump's own tweets in his decision, reportedly stating, "I thought the president said 'we'll see you in court'?"
Also Monday, a separate federal court in Virginia issued a preliminary injunction against the application of the ban to Virginia residents and those with connections to state-run institutions. The injunction will stay in place until it can be fully argued in court.
U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, of Arlington, wrote (pdf) that the ban was a "centerpiece of the president's campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered."
"The 'specific sequence of events' leading to the adoption of the [executive order, or EO] bolsters the Commonwealth's argument that the EO was not motivated by rational national security concerns," she wrote, adding that the government has "not offered any evidence to identify the national security concerns that allegedly prompted this EO, or even described the process by which the president concluded that this action was necessary."
Both developments constitute yet more notable setbacks for Trump, who is already on a losing streak over the ban. Federal courts throughout the country have ruled against and halted portions of his executive order amid a flurry of civil rights lawsuits.
The order prompted widespread protests at airports throughout the country.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.