After Judge Freezes Trump's Ban, 'Revocation of Visas' Put on Hold

Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Fadi Kassar (L) hugs his daughters Hnan, 8 and Lian, 5, for the first time in more than 2 years as his wife Razan looks on after the family was reunited following a flight from Amman, Jordan, at John F. Kennedy International airport in New York City, U.S. February 2, 2017.
Fadi Kassar (L) hugs his daughters Hnan, 8 and Lian, 5, for the first time in more than 2 years as his wife Razan looks on after the family was reunited following a flight from Amman, Jordan, at John Credit: HANDOUT/REUTERS

The U.S. State Department announced that it will allow people with valid visas into the United States, a department official said on Saturday, in order to comply with an opinion from a federal judge in Seattle barring President Donald Trump's executive action. 

"We have reversed the provisional revocation of visas," the State Department official said in a statement. "Those individuals with visas that were not physically canceled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid." 

On Friday, a Seattle federal judge put a nationwide block on Trump's executive order on immigration. The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump's action, though the White House said late Friday that it believed the ban to be "lawful and appropriate" and that the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency appeal. 

In this Feb. 1, 2017, photo, President Donald Trump, accompanied by his daughter Ivanka, waves as they walk to board Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington.Credit: Evan Vucci/AP

The Department of Homeland Security said Saturday it would stop flagging travelers from countries targeted by Trump's executive order, a spokeswoman said on Saturday, in order to comply with the ruling. The Justice Department intends to file an emergency stay of the order at the earliest possible time, the Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said.

In a tweet, Trump denounced the "opinion of the so-called judge" as "ridiculous," and said it "will be overturned."

Trump's Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.

>> Trump needs a holy war | Bradley Burston <<

The State Department said Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended in the wake of Trump's order, but reports citing government lawyers put the figure at 100,000. It was not clear Friday night whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what travelers with such visas might confront at U.S. airports. 

While a number of lawsuits have been filed over Trump's action, the Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of the executive order. Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals. 

The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration. 

Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses. 

Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies. 

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms" suffered by Washington state's universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban. 

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump's order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be "based in fact, as opposed to fiction." 

The White House said it would file an appeal as soon as possible. 

"At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the president, which we believe is lawful and appropriate," the White House said in a statement. 

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

Click the alert icon to follow topics: