Trump, and the Eastern District of Virginia granted a TRO of the Order in Aziz v. On January 28th, the Eastern District of New York granted a stay of the Order in Darweesh v. Judge Robart’s decision is just the latest in a wave of lower court orders blocking parts of the Executive Order. The plaintiffs’ response is supported by amici, including 127 companies encouraging the Ninth Circuit to uphold Judge Robart’s order. The accelerated briefing schedule will culminate in a telephonic oral argument on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, less than 100 hours after the initial order. The Ninth Circuit denied the DOJ’s request for an immediate administrative stay prior to any briefing on the emergency motion, but it gave the States of Washington and Minnesota only one day to draft a brief in opposition to the emergency motion, followed by only another fifteen hours for the DOJ to file its reply brief. The former being a more rapid implementation of the latter.
#JYDGE ROBART FULL#
The Department of Justice immediately filed a notice of appeal as well as a motion in the Ninth Circuit, requesting: (1) an immediate administrative stay of Judge Robart’s TRO pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay and (2) an emergency stay of the TRO pending appeal of the district court’s injunctive order. To the surprise of some commentators, the Department of Homeland Security quickly announced that it would suspend all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order, and the State Department announced that those with valid visas could enter the country. Judge Robart found that the Executive Order adversely affects Washington’s and Minnesota’s residents across the board-in “employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel”-and also damages “the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning.” Perhaps most notably, he clarified that the “TRO is granted on a nationwide basis”-prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order at “all United States borders and ports of entry pending further orders.” The court, he said, must intervene to “fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government.” Section 5 suspends the refugee program and requires the refugee program, once resumed, to prioritize refugees persecuted as religious minorities. Section 3(c) bans travel from the seven majority-Muslim countries. Under the order, the Federal Defendants-including President Trump himself-and their agents are restrained from enforcing sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order. Hours later, Judge Robart issued a seven-page order. Judge Robart heard oral argument on February 3rd and granted the motion from the bench. On January 30th, the State of Washington and the State of Minnesota filed an emergency motion for a TRO halting the Executive Order in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Most notably, it temporarily bars refugees and nationals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States. The controversial Executive Order, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” dramatically alters the United States admission process for non-citizens. Robart, a 1973 alum of Georgetown University Law Center and a former Administrative Editor of The Georgetown Law Journal, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order of January 27, 2017.
0 kommentar(er)
