Judge James L. Robart did not have to actually rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order barring people from seven countries from entering the United States. In granting a temporary restraining order, the judge essentially had to decide that: the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota) were likely to succeed at a later date; people in those states could suffer irreparable harm if the ban continued; and blocking the president's order was in the public interest. In other words, he decided there was more harm letting the ban continue than there was blocking it until the full case could be heard. But Robart certainly tipped his hand on whether he thought the ban was justified . He questioned Department of Justice lawyer Michelle Bennett, who was representing the Trump administration, asking, "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11?" The Sept. 11 attack was one of the rationales behind the executive order,
↧