Trump Travel Ban: WA Files Response To Trump Appeal

SEATTLE, WA — Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has responded to the Trump administration's appeal of his restraining order blocking the president's travel ban — and Ferguson has received backing by some prominent former diplomats and security officials in his quest to overturn the order.

Filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Sunday, the response says that granting the Trump administration's request to overturn the restraining order would cause "chaos."

"The effects of the [temporary restraining order] were positive and immediate, as immigration procedures began to return to normal, families reunited, stranded students and faculty began returning to our states, and longtime state residents were able to return to their homes," the response says. "Defendants now ask this court to unleash chaos again by staying the district court order. The court should decline. Defendants’ appeal is improper, their burden to obtain a stay is high and unmet, and their arguments fail."

On Friday, Washington and Minnesota won a temporary restraining order blocking the executive order nationwide. On Saturday, the Department of Justice filed an appeal to lift the restraining order but was denied by the appeals court. In its decision, the court said that Washington and Minnesota had until Sunday to respond. The Department of Justice has until 3 p.m. Monday PST to respond.

If the Department of Justice prevails on Monday, the executive order would go back into effect.

The response was written by Ferguson, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, Solicitor General Noah Purcell and deputy Washington attorneys general. Washington and Minnesota — with the help of companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Expedia — have argued that Trump's travel ban harms the economy and violates the Constitution.

"Staying the district court’s ruling would reinstitute those harms, separating families, stranding our university students and faculty, and barring travel. Defendants claim that national security requires these harms, but the court need not and should not allow constitutional violations merely based on defendant’s unsupported invocation of national security concerns," the response concludes.

In addition to the response, a number of former diplomats and security officials filed a declaration in support of the restraining order. Some of those officials include former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeline Albright, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, former U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta.

"We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the executive order issued on Jan. 27, 2017. We view the order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer," they wrote in their declaration.

Image via Washington Attorney General