Rabat - Before a packed courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge, Ann M. Donnelly, issued a stay on Saturday, against the executive order president Donald Trump issued Friday night.
Rabat – Before a packed courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge, Ann M. Donnelly, issued a stay on Saturday, against the executive order president Donald Trump issued Friday night.
The order barred anyone originating from a country on the Trump 7 list from attempting to enter the U.S.
According to US media, the stay was set down in a ruling by District Court Judge Ann M. Donnelly, in response to a challenge her court received from the ACLU, on behalf of two Iraqi nationals on Saturday. They had been detained since Friday evening when the executive order was signed and made immediately effective.
The ACLU estimated that approximately 100-200 people, including the two plaintiffs named in the challenge, found themselves detained at airports across the country, threatened with deportation.
The stay offers a temporary reprieve until a hearing set for February 21 decides if the stay will be granted permanent status.
Trump’s executive order imposed an immediate ban on anyone attempting to enter the U.S. from the Trump 7 countries; Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.
It was clear in comments appearing online, following the judge’s ruling, that the ACLU is considering this an important victory.
Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project tweeted the following: “We won… Stay is national… Nationwide injunction- no one can be removed- gov’t must provide a list of names of people affect.”
The ACLU office in Ohio also tweeted, “Stay covers all those who were in transit or are being detained at airports. Important first win-thank you attorneys.”
The Guardian reported Saturday that, during the stay hearing, Judge Donnelly made it clear that she felt the executive order ill-prepared and rushed, as were the government lawyers tasked with arguing the Trump administration’s case. “I think the government hasn’t had a full chance to think about this,” Donnelly told a packed courtroom.
Supporting this theory, CNN is reporting a White House source as saying no legal guidance had been sought by the two men thought to be the main architects of the order, members of Trump’s inner circle, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller and that the order “did not follow the standard agency review process that’s typically overseen by the National Security Council.”
Another White House source told CNN that officials were shown details of the order at the last possible moment before it’s signing, which resulted in them being “caught off guard.”
Judge Donnelly was nominated to the Federal District Court by Barack Obama. Quoted in The Guardian, Donnelly issued the stay, citing that the deportations could cause “irreparable harm” by returning people holding valid visas and green cards to countries where they could be put in danger.
In addition to issuing the stay on deportations, Donnelly’s ruling also orders the government to provide a list of names for the people currently being detained in violation of the order. This will ensure they can be contacted by appropriate legal counsel and released as soon as possible.
Challenges against the executive order are coming in from other quarters as well. Online website, Just Security, published an article on Saturday afternoon in which it highlights that Trump’s ban on Muslims contravenes the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Written by David Cole, the article also reported that, in an interview with Christian Broadcast News, Trump stated that “the order was intended to give priority to ‘Christians’ seeking asylum over ‘Muslims.’”
Just Security also announced its intention to file a legal challenge against Trump and his administration over the order, arguing the Establishment Clause.