Washington AG Bob Ferguson speaks after federal judge grants restraining order halting enforcement of President Trump's executive order on immigration

Media: MediaOS Video

In an early test of President Donald Trump's so-called "Muslim ban," a federal judge in Seattle on Friday halted the enforcement of the fastest-acting parts of the controversial week-old executive order.

U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled on a motion by the state of Washington, issuing a temporary, nationwide restraining order stopping the parts of Trump's order that block entry to the U.S. by refugees and immigrants from some predominantly Muslim countries.

Robart's ruling means refugees worldwide and certain immigrants from the seven countries Trump targeted will be allowed to enter the U.S. immediately. All have already been vetted by immigration officials.

"Judge Robart's decision puts a halt to Trump's unconstitutional executive order nationwide," Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said after the ruling.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer released a statement late Friday saying they "will file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate." Soon after, the White House sent out a new statement that removed the word "outrageous."

"The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people," the statement said.

Reuters, citing an airline official, reported that "U.S. Customs & Border Protection has informed U.S. airlines that they can once again board travelers who had been barred by an executive order last week."

Gillian M. Christensen, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation. The judge's ruling could be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

From the bench, Robart acknowledged the sweeping impact of his ruling.

"There is a very narrow question before the court today," Robart said. "Although that question is narrow, the court is aware of the considerable impact that will have on the parties here" and across the nation.

Friday’s was the first hearing in Washington state’s lawsuit filed Monday against Trump; Ferguson argued the order was discriminatory and illegal. Seattle-area companies Amazon and Expedia filed declarations in support of Washington’s case, and the state of Minnesota moved to join the case Wednesday.

Following the ruling, Ferguson said Robart's decision will provide immediate relief to those targeted by Trump's order.

"I'm certain the president will not like this decision," the Seattle Democrat said. "But it is his job, it is his obligation to honor it, and I'll make sure he does."

The ruling comes after a week of confusion, protest and defiance against Trump’s executive order.

Washington’s lawsuit, filed by Ferguson's office, was the first suit brought by a state against the Trump administration over the order, but Massachusetts, Virginia, New York and the city of San Francisco have all filed or joined other suits against Trump over the order. Several individuals have filed suit as well.

Earlier Friday in Boston, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton sided with the administration and refused to extend a restraining order similar to the one Ferguson won. At the same time, a federal judge in Virginia, in a win for Trump's opponents, allowed the state to join a lawsuit against the immigration restriction. 

Ferguson argued that Trump’s order violates some clauses of the U.S. Constitution: The equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Ferguson also argued the order violates several federal laws around immigration and religious protection.

Defending Trump's order in Seattle, Department of Justice attorney Michelle Bennett argued that Trump's motivations could not be reviewed by a court because they dealt with matters of national security. 

Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell, who argued the motion for the state Friday, took particular issue with that argument.

"Frankly, the federal government's position about standard of review here is frightening," Purcell said. "They're saying that you can't review anything the president says" if he says it's a matter of national security.

Purcell focused largely on the negative impacts the state argued Trump's order has and will continue to have on state universities, as well as broad and potential economic impacts to tourism.

Robart, a longtime attorney in private practice appointed to the federal bench in 2003 by President Bush, filed the formal ruling Friday evening.

The judge's written order, released late Friday, said it's not the court's job to "create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches" of government.

The court's job "is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country's laws."

Robart ordered federal defendants "and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from" enforcing the executive order.

The Associated Press contributed to this report


Daniel DeMay covers Seattle culture, business and transportation for seattlepi.com. He can be reached at 206-448-8362 or danieldemay@seattlepi.com. Follow him on Twitter: @Daniel_DeMay.