by Jason DeWitt | Top Right News
President Donald J. Trump issued a new executive order banning travel of refugees and immigrants into the U.S. from six terror-linked nations with dangerously poor vetting.
A Federal District judge had blocked Trump’s previous order nationwide — and was upheld by the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit Appeals Court.
So when liberal Attorneys General in Washington State and New York decided to challenge Trump’s new order, they went right back to the same judge, expecting the same result.
They were sorely disappointed, as we just found out.
The judge said no.
From Biz Pac Review:
A U.S. federal court refused to apply the emergency restraining order from President Trump’s immigration executive order to his newly modified travel ban.
Seattle U.S. District Court Judge James Robart, who issued the temporary restraining order against Trump’s initial order last month, refused a request on Friday to apply that order to the revised policy according to Reuters.
That means the ban remains in effect.
New York joined Washington in their request for Robart to apply his previous order to Trump’s new ban, but were rejected.
The judge said you can’t do that, the new ban requires a more extensive filing.
And it looks like Team Trump has strong confidence the new ban will remain in effect.
The revised ban, which is expected to go into effect on March 16, has now removed Iraq from the list of countries with temporary bans on travel and no longer bans Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said it was expected that states might challenge the ban but that she believed that it would “pass legal muster.”
Conway pointed to how Iraq got off the list as a way for the other countries to follow. She said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly worked with Iraq extensively over the past month — including a personal visit and bringing in major U.S. staff — to help them increase their vetting, which got them off the list.
This likely will go through some of the same steps that the old ban went through in the courts.
However, even CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin said that, because of the revisions, it stands a “far better chance,” with “less to legally question.”