02:12 GMT01 December 2020
Listen Live
    Get short URL

    US President Donald Trump wonders "what is our country coming to" when a federal judge can do his job and allow a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of an executive order to continue.

    The new US president's feathers remain terribly ruffled after a lowly federal judge dared halt his week-old refugee and immigration ban. 

    Judge James Robart found that the lawsuit filed by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson had a chance of winning and that Washington state and Minnesota had the standing to challenge Trump's order, and issued an immediate and nationwide halt to it. 

    "The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury," Robart said in his ruling. The US Department of Homeland Security, following US law, announced the next morning that it had stopped implementing the executive order. 

    "The constitution prevailed today," Ferguson said after the ruling, Al Jazeera reported. "No one is above the law, not even the president. Not everybody may like this decision — I'm certain the president will not like this decision — but it is his job, it is his responsibility, it is his obligation as president to honor it and I'll make sure he does."

    Trump, however, doesn't seem to enjoy the rule of law. 

    The ban does not come from the DHS, however, but via executive order by the president. On January 27, Trump signed the order halting the US Syrian refugee resettlement program, temporarily halting all other refugee programs, and barring entry to nationals from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

    Lawsuits challenging the ban say that by targeting Muslims (Christians and members of minority religions from the seven countries were to be given priority in reviews) put it in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or infringing on religious freedom. ​

    Trump says the decision means "dangerous people" will be flooding the United States. Never mind that there are no reported deaths in the US at the hands of someone who entered the country as a refugee, and that the average American is more likely to be killed in a kitchen accident than through a terrorist plot.

    In fact, during the hearing on Friday, Robart asked Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett if there had been any terrorist attacks conducted in the US by people from the seven counties since the 9/11 attacks, AP reports.

    Bennett said she didn't know.

    There have been none, the judge told her. "You're here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that," he said.

    ​This is not the first time the president has lashed out at the judicial branch. In June, he said several times that the Mexican heritage of US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel — a US citizen — would bias him against Trump in the cases against Trump University Curiel was presiding over.

    The White House has said it will challenge the travel ban ruling. But for now, the order will not be implemented until Robart hears the Washington state lawsuit against it. If Washington wins, the ban will be overturned. 


    CNN Releases Early Approval Rating for President Trump
    Three Weeks of Protest: Anti-Trump Demonstrators Rally Against Travel Ban
    'Hand in Hand': Belgian Party Says Trump Should Work on Syria With Russia, EU
    Twitter, Muslim ban, travel ban, James L. Robart, Donald Trump, US
    Community standardsDiscussion