WEST
PALM BEACH, Fla. — A day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the
White House’s immigration order, the government on Saturday began
opening the nation’s doors again to refugees and travelers from seven
predominantly Muslim nations even as President Trump unleashed a
fusillade of criticism against the court ruling and the Justice
Department moved to have it overturned.
On
another day of chaotic developments over the week-old order, the State
Department reversed its cancellation of visas for people from the seven
affected countries and restarted efforts to admit refugees. Aid groups
scrambled to take advantage of what they acknowledged might be a brief
opportunity for refugees to enter the United States, and small numbers
of travelers from the previously banned countries began their journeys,
knowing that the judge’s ruling could be reversed at any time.
The
developments led Mr. Trump to lash out throughout the day on Saturday,
prompting criticism that he failed to respect the judicial branch and
its power to exert a check on his authority
In an early-morning Twitter post
from his waterfront Florida resort, where he is spending the first
getaway weekend of his presidency, Mr. Trump wrote, “The opinion of this
so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our
country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
Late
Saturday, the Justice Department filed papers notifying the District
Court that it would seek to have the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit block the lower court’s action. The White House had
said earlier that it would direct the Justice Department to file for an
emergency stay of the ruling, by Judge James Robart of Federal District Court in Seattle, that would allow continued enforcement of the president’s order.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Judge
Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declared in his
ruling that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that
“we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected
countries — Iran, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya.
Judge Robart Rules on Immigration Ban
On Friday, Judge James Robart of
Federal District Court in Seattle declared that “there’s no support” for
the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from
individuals” from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya.
By UNITED STATES COURTS on Publish Date February 4, 2017.
Photo by United States Courts.
Watch in Times Video »
The
judge also barred the administration from enforcing its limits on
accepting refugees. The State Department said on Saturday that refugees,
including Syrians, could begin arriving as early as Monday. Syrians had
faced an indefinite ban under the executive order. His ruling applied
nationwide.
Despite
Mr. Trump’s vehement criticism of the ruling and the certainty that it
would be appealed, the government agencies at the center of the issue,
the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, moved
quickly to comply.
Lawrence
Bartlett, the State Department’s director of refugee resettlement,
wrote in a departmental email that officials were working to rebook
travel for refugees who had previously been scheduled to leave for the
United States over a three-week period that will end Feb. 17. A State
Department official said the extended time frame accounted for the fact
that some refugees will have to make difficult journeys back to airports
from refugee camps.
Until
there is a new order from the courts, the official said, the department
will go back to vetting refugees, booking their travel and bringing
them to the United States. A United Nations spokesman, Leonard Doyle,
said about 2,000 refugees were ready to travel.
Airlines,
citing American customs officials, were telling passengers from the
seven countries that their visas were once again valid. Those carriers,
however, have yet to report an uptick in travel, and there appeared to
be no rush to airports by visa holders in Europe and the Middle East
intent on making their way to the United States.
Etihad
Airways, the United Arab Emirates’ national carrier, said in a
statement: “Following advice received today from the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection unit at Abu Dhabi Airport, the airline will again be
accepting nationals from the seven countries named last week.” Other
Arab carriers, including Qatar Airways, issued similar statements.
Seattle Judge Blocks Executive Order
Washington state officials spoke at a
news conference outside Federal District Court in Seattle after Judge
James Robart temporarily blocked President Trump's immigration order.
By REUTERS and ASSOCIATED PRESS.
Photo by Karen Ducey/Getty Images.
Watch in Times Video »
A
group of advocacy organizations that had worked to overturn the
executive order and help immigrants and refugees stranded at airports
issued a statement on Saturday afternoon encouraging travelers “to
rebook travel to the United States immediately.”
“We
have been in contact with hundreds of people impacted by the ban, and
we are urging them to get on planes as quickly as possible,” Clare Kane,
a law student intern at the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
at Yale Law School, one of the groups involved, said in a statement.
But
some officials were being more cautious, advising travelers to wait for
further clarity. The American Embassy in Baghdad said it was waiting
for additional guidance from Washington. “We don’t know what the effect
will be, but we’re working to get more information,” the embassy told
The Associated Press in a statement.
The
Department of Homeland Security said it had suspended implementation of
the order, including procedures to flag travelers from the countries
designated in Mr. Trump’s order. It said it would resume standard
inspection procedures. But in a statement, the department defended the
order as “lawful and appropriate.”
In
his first statement on the matter on Friday evening, the press
secretary, Sean Spicer, described the judge’s action as “outrageous.”
Minutes later, the White House issued a new statement deleting the word
outrageous.
Mr.
Trump’s Twitter post showed no such restraint. It recalled the attacks
he made during the presidential campaign on a federal district judge in
California who was presiding over a class-action lawsuit involving Trump
University.
Got a confidential news tip?
The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want
to share messages and materials with our journalists.
Democrats
said the president’s criticism of Judge Robart was a dangerous
development. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, a member of the
Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Mr. Trump seemed “intent
on precipitating a constitutional crisis.” Gov. Jay Inslee of
Washington, whose state filed the suit that led to the injunction, said
the attack was “beneath the dignity” of the presidency and could “lead
America to calamity.”
Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a statement
that Mr. Trump’s outburst could weigh on the confirmation process for
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
Until
now, Mr. Trump had been comparatively restrained about the multiple
federal judges who have ruled against parts of his immigration order,
even as he staunchly defended its legality. Some analysts had speculated
that he did not want a repeat of the storm during the campaign when he
accused Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
of having a conflict of interest in the Trump University case because
the judge’s family was of Mexican heritage. Mr. Trump, who had painted
Mexicans as rapists and criminals, settled that case after the election.
But on Saturday, Mr. Trump let loose, and in the afternoon he unleashed another volley of attacks on the ruling. In one Twitter message,
he questioned why a judge could “halt a Homeland Security travel ban,”
which would allow “anyone, even with bad intentions,” to enter the
country. An hour later, he complained about the “terrible decision,” saying it would let “many very bad and dangerous people” pour into the country.
Earlier, Mr. Trump had asserted,
without evidence, that some Middle Eastern countries supported the
immigration order. “Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries
agree with the ban,” he wrote. “They know that if certain people are
allowed in it’s death & destruction!”
The
Washington State case was filed on Monday, and it was assigned to Judge
Robart that day. He asked for briefs on whether the state had standing
to sue, with the last one due on Thursday. On Wednesday, Minnesota
joined the suit.
On
Friday evening, after a hearing, Judge Robart issued a temporary
restraining order, saying it was required to maintain the status quo as
the case moved forward. He found that the states and their citizens had
been injured by Mr. Trump’s order.
“The
executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of
employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to
travel,” Judge Robart wrote. He said the states had been hurt because
the order affected their public universities and their tax base.
Still, Judge Robart’s order left many questions, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.
“Does
the executive order violate the equal protection of the laws, amount to
an establishment of religion, violate rights of free exercise, or
deprive aliens of due process of law?” Professor Blackman asked. “Who
knows? The analysis is bare bones, and leaves the court of appeals, as
well as the Supreme Court, with no basis to determine whether the
nationwide injunction was proper.”
An
appeal was to be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which includes the Seattle district where Judge Robart
sits. Federal judges in other jurisdictions around the country have
issued more limited rulings that temporarily struck down parts of the
order, though a federal judge in Boston on Friday upheld it.
While large crowds had yet to materialize at airports, there were individual stories of people trying to enter the country.
Nael
Zaino, 32, a Syrian who had tried unsuccessfully for nearly a week to
fly to the United States to join his wife and American-born son, was
allowed to board a flight from Istanbul and then Frankfurt late Friday.
He landed in Boston around 1 p.m. Saturday and emerged from immigration
two hours later, said his sister-in-law Katty Alhayek.
Mr.
Zaino was believed to be among the first revoked visa holders to enter
the United States since the executive order went into effect. His
advocates had sought a waiver for him from the State Department, citing
family reunification. “Mine must be a very special case,” Mr. Zaino said
by phone from Istanbul.
It
was, in a sense. But it was also a case of good fortune. As his
advocates were pressing the State Department for a waiver, the federal
judge in Washington State issued his order.
Iranians,
many of them students on their way to American universities, also
rushed to book flights to transfer destinations in other Persian Gulf
countries, Turkey and Europe. Pedram Paragomi, a 33-year-old Iranian
medical student bound for the University of Pittsburgh, who had been caught up in the initial chaos over the travel ban, flew to Frankfurt on Saturday, where he was to transfer to a flight to Boston.
“I’m anxious,” he said from Frankfurt. “The rules keep on changing, but I think I will make it this time.”
The
Washington State case, filed by the state’s attorney general, Bob
Ferguson, alleged sweeping damages to the state’s economy and
communities, but declined to name any individual residents as
plaintiffs, as had been the case in the narrower previous cases.
The
state made no secret of its intentions with the suit: Mr. Ferguson said
that it was intended to neuter Mr. Trump’s order. Standing beside the
governor, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Ferguson said his goal was “invalidating the
president’s unlawful action nationwide.”
The
White House order, the Washington State complaint said, “is separating
Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging
Washington’s economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and
undermining Washington’s sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming
place for immigrants and refugees.”
Mr.
Ferguson phoned several other Democratic attorneys general before
filing suit and throughout the week, though none immediately backed his
litigation. On Thursday, the Minnesota attorney general, Lori Swanson,
announced that her state would join Mr. Ferguson’s suit as a second
plaintiff.
Multiple
states that wanted to challenge the president’s order spent several
days designing narrower legal strategies than Mr. Ferguson’s, worrying
that such a broad attack might founder over questions of standing.
Rob
McKenna, a former Washington State attorney general, likened Mr.
Ferguson’s approach to the legal offensive that Republican state
attorneys general mounted against the Affordable Care Act under
President Barack Obama.
Mr.
McKenna, who is a Republican, said before the judge’s ruling that Mr.
Ferguson’s action reflected the more confrontational role state legal
officers have played in recent years.
“I
think he has a steep hill to climb, to overcome the president’s
constitutional and statutory authority to control immigration,” Mr.
McKenna said. “But it raises valid questions.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment