Per US Code Executive Order is Perfectly Legal

Seattle Judge Robart has proven himself to be yet another judicial activist, living out his “social justice warrior” dreams by erroneously granting a TRO (temporary restraining order) in response to the state of Washington’s request, thereby placing a brief hold on President Trump’s lawful executive order on travel from seven hotbeads of terrorism.

President Trump put a temporary 90-day suspension of all citizens from 7 Middle Eastern and African countries from entering the United States. These are countries that the Obama administration identified as breeding grounds of terrorism . The “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015” named Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, while its 2016 update added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 was passed in 1952 by a Democratic-majority House and Senate, and specifically authorizes the President of the United States to bar immigrants from any country, regardless of race or religion, if he believes they represent a threat to the United States.

“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President- Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. ”

President Trump’s executive order is within his authority and perfectly legal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

A prominent lawyer who disagrees with Trump on policy has written a fair critique on the judges from Boston and Seattle who faced essentially the same case- requests to block Trump’s executive order:

“Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.”

Judge Robart of Seattle is wrong, had no legal basis to grant the TRO, and Trump’s executive order will stand in the end.  This case once again demonstrates the need to remove activist judges from any political party who attempt to legislate from the bench rather than actually doing their jobs, which is interpreting the law and not re-writing it.

** Update 02/06/2017 **   The Washington Examiner has published an excellent piece detailing the faults in the Washington case, Robart’s blatant errors, and a review of the DOJ’s brief that destroys any arguement against the Constitutionality or legality of President Trump’s executive order.  Definitely worth the read.