For Muslims in area, relief after court ruling halting travel ban

By Grace Swanson • February 5, 2017 1:30 am
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson reflects on U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart’s temporary restraining order on President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the U.S. from seven countries that Trump had determined were terrorism threats. “We are a nation of laws,” Ferguson said. “Not even the President can violate our constitution.” Photo: Washington Attorney General’s Office
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson reflects on U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart’s temporary restraining order on President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the U.S. from seven countries that Trump had determined were terrorism threats. “We are a nation of laws,” Ferguson said. “Not even the President can violate our constitution.” Photo: Washington Attorney General’s Office

OLYMPIA — Mohamud Yussuf feels relief after President Trump’s travel ban was temporarily halted.

In a court hearing Feb. 3, U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart ruled in the State of Washington’s favor and granted a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order that sought to ban travel into the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Yussuf, a Somali-born U.S. citizen living in the Seattle area, said he was apprehensive about leaving the U.S. after Trump imposed his order, fearing he might not be able to return.

Yussuf arrived in Seattle as a refugee 20 years ago, and is now the publisher and chief editor of Runta Somali News Magazine, a Somali-English publication based in Seattle. With Somalia as his country of origin, Yussuf said he is regularly questioned when he returns from trips outside the U.S. As a Muslim, he worries what the Trump administration will do next.

He feels a little more confident now that the ban is put on hold. “Today is a victory for everybody,” he said after the court hearing.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a request for an emergency stay of the court ruling late Feb. 4.

In their motion, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to void Judge Robart’s ruling and resume the travel suspension. Their appeal argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives the President the authority to suspend foreign nationals who would be detrimental to the national security of the United States.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s appeal, which means the travel ban remains on hold. The State of Washington, which challenged the ban as unconstitutional, and the Trump Administration were asked to submit legal briefs to the court by Feb. 6.

Trump’s executive order barred people with visas from entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. The administration had said these measures would help prevent terrorists from entering the United States. The Refugee Admissions Program was also suspended for 120 days from the order’s effective date. Judge Robart’s ruling puts both of these provisions temporarily on hold.

In a statement Feb. 4, the Department of Homeland Security announced it has suspended parts of the executive order, which means travelers who hold passports from the seven previously barred countries may enter the United States. The refugee program also resumes.

Future court hearings address striking down the order permanently.

“I said from the beginning, it’s not the loudest voice that prevails in a courtroom, it’s the Constitution,” state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in press conference after the court hearing.

Ferguson filed suit against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, and high-ranking Trump Administration officials on Jan. 30 in District Court to halt implementation of the travel ban detailed in the president’s executive order. The State of Minnesota was added as a plaintiff; other states are considering joining the suit.

Expedia and Amazon, both headquartered in the Seattle area, filed declarations in support of Ferguson’s suit, outlining the negative impacts the executive order would have on company employees who are citizens of the seven banned countries.

During the court hearing Feb. 3, state Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued that Trump’s order was motivated by religious discrimination toward Muslims, and prevented people in Washington state who are citizens of the countries listed in the travel ban from traveling and working overseas. The solicitor general represents the Attorney General’s office in state and federal cases.

Purcell also claimed that state-funded universities, including Washington State University and the University of Washington, would be negatively affected. International students and staff from the seven prohibited countries affiliated with the universities would not be able to travel.

The Trump administration’s lawyer responded that the harm experienced by the universities could be harmful to a student, but not to the state. Justice Department trial attorney Michelle Bennett said the president has a right to suspend certain aliens if he feels they are detrimental to the country.

After questioning both attorneys, Judge Robart ruled in the state’s favor.

Arsalan Bukhari is executive director of the Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Seattle, which, he explains, strives to protect the civil liberties of Muslims and increase the understanding of Islam. He is encouraged by the court ruling.

“It reminds American-Muslims, like all Americans, that the Constitution is the law of the land,” he said. “No one is above the law, not even the President.”

(This story is part of a series of news reports from the Washington State Legislature provided through a reporting internship sponsored by the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association Foundation. Reach reporter Grace Swanson at grace.swanson47@gmail.com)