Friday 24, 2016
The DOJ is asking that a federal appeals court put the travel ban appeals case, in which Minnesota and Seattle are suing to stop the executive order, on hold. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Intel is undermining the case for Trump’s executive order. And Trump is publicly asking for a court fight, but today’s DOJ request contradicts his Twitter rants. Confused?
The Timeline of Travel Ban Court Actions:
- Washington and Minnesota States sued to stop Trump’s executive order.
- A federal judge in Seattle put a national temporary restraining order (TRO) on the executive order.
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal judge ruling, issued a stay on the TRO, and asked that the gov’t file an opening brief by March 3rd.
- Today: In comes the DOJ, lead by Jeff Sessions, asking that the case be put on hold.
Q: Why ask for a hold if a new executive order is expected to be out next week (which is what the WH said last week)? It could go into effect immediately, override the old order and make the point moot.
Minnesota and Washington State:
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said they want the court to keep the case on track.
“Despite tweeting, ‘SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!’ President Trump continues to seek delay after delay in these legal proceedings,” Ferguson said in an email to The Associated Press. “We will oppose this latest effort to postpone that day in court.”
Additionally, the Governor of Washington state– Jay Inslee–signed his own executive order on Thursday, barring immigration raids and a religious registry.
Trump’s Public Vow Differs from DOJ Request:
Trump’s Twitter: ‘SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!’
The Justice Department wants a federal appeals court to put President Trump’s travel ban case on hold until he issues a new order, but the states who sued to stop the ban want the case to move forward. –AP
Today Homeland Security Intelligence Committee Downplays Threat:
A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria’s civil war started in 2011.