The federal judge in Seattle on Friday did not rule that the Executive Order is unconstitutional or illegal. Rather he ordered a temporary two week stay on the enforcement of the Executive Order until this question of its legality is decided in further argument before him in two weeks time.
In doing so the judge acted fully within his powers, though as I understand it he took a different view from a different federal judge in Massachusetts who apparently refused to grant a similar stay when he was asked to do so at roughly the same time that the judge in Seattle was making his decision.
The Department of Justice is appealing the stay. It is doing so on the grounds that the Executive Order is fully legal and constitutional and needs to be brought back into force immediately in order to protect the US from potential terrorists, who might take advantage of the stay to enter the US during the two week period when it is in effect.
On Saturday the Department of Justice asked the federal appeal court in San Francisco (which will hear the appeal) to lift the stay. The federal appeal court however refused to do so, saying that the plaintiffs who applied for the stay should be given an opportunity to respond. It gave the plaintiffs until Sunday (ie. today) to file their objections to the Department of Justice's application to lift the stay, with the Department of Justice instructed to file its counter-objections on Monday (ie. tomorrow).
Contrary to some media claims, this is completely standard practice during appeals. It would be very unusual for an appeal court to set aside a judge's order - even a temporary order - without a full hearing, and the Department of Justice will undoubtedly have known this when it applied to the appeal court to have the stay lifted on Saturday.
The reason the Department of Justice made the application on Saturday is because it wants to emphasise to the appeal court the urgency of the situation. This is important, not just because of the danger of terrorists entering the US during the period of the stay, but because unless the appeal court is convinced of the urgency of the situation it will simply say that the Department of Justice should wait until the hearing ordered by the federal judge in Seattle in two weeks time.
In other words by insisting that the stay be lifted immediately the Department of Justice is providing reasons to the appeal court to take the case out of the federal judge's hands, so that it can decide the case itself. That was the true purpose of the application on Saturday, and it succeeded.
I expect the appeal court in San Francisco to decide the appeal this week, possibly as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday.
As I am not an expert in US constitutional law I do not know what the outcome of the appeal will be. I should say that it would be completely wrong to try to guess the outcome from the decision the appeal court took on Saturday.
The appeal will be purely on the question of the rightness or otherwise of the stay. If the appeal decision goes against the President it will be for the Department of Justice to put his case to the federal judge at the full hearing in two weeks time. If that decision also goes against the President, he can appeal again to the federal appeal court in San Francisco, and beyond that to the Supreme Court.
By contrast if the Department of Justice wins the appeal this week then I would expect the plaintiffs to drop the case in Seattle and try to go directly to the Supreme Court. Since the appeal court would have effectively affirmed the legality of the Executive Order, there would be little point in the plaintiffs continuing to contest the Executive Order before the federal judge in Seattle.
One way or the other I expect this case to go to the Supreme Court. With the Supreme Court apparently evenly split between conservatives and liberals, and with it being highly unlikely that Neil Gorsuch - Trump's nominee for the vacancy in the Supreme Court - can be confirmed in time for the hearing of the case, it looks like a nail-biting battle, with no certain outcome.
The state-run IRNA news agency reported that foreign ministry spokesman, Bahram Ghasemi, made the announcement after the matter had come before a special committee, which decided to bar US athletes from taking part in the freestyle World Cup, one of the most prestigious events in international wrestling.Update (Feb. 5): Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi said in a Telegram message that the visas would be issued for the U.S. team partly because of a decision by a U.S. federal judge to block the executive order.
The competition is set to take place on February 16-17 in the western city of Kermanshah.
"These decisions, these executive decisions, are always so far beyond your reach," four-time world champion Jordan Burroughs told AP.
"Like, you always feel like 'Well, the presidency or these strict laws or these Muslim bans or whatever you like to call them, they'll never affect me.' This is one of the few times where something so personal has occurred. Almost like it [was] handed down from the president to us. It's a bummer."
"I love Iran. I love their people, and I don't get into politics," he added. "I wasn't going to make a political stance. I was going to compete."
USA Wrestling, the sport's governing body in America, said they had not yet been informed that they were not being allowed to compete, but if that was the case it would be very disappointing.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robart ruled late on February 3 that the executive order could not be enforced until the case against it brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota was decided.
A day later, the U.S. Justice Department filed an appeal to reinstate President Donald Trump's executive order.
Qasemi did not clarify whether Americans with Iranian visas would be allowed to enter Iran or if any new visas would be issued to U.S. citizens.
We will work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace along the borderThis comment contains no criticism of Russia, it does not accuse Russia of initiating the fighting, and it makes no reference to "Russian aggression". Nor does it make any strong statement of support for Ukraine.
Comment: US appeals court denies Trump admin request to reinstate ban