Washington and Minnesota’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order (EO) showcases a cavalcade of legal errors.
First, the lawsuit could have been dismissed by the district court (or the court of appeals) in whole or in part for lack of jurisdiction.
Second, the district court did not give the required legal reasoning in its order to justify the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
Third, the court had no business enjoining the executive order nationwide, instead of just in the two states.
But fourth, once the district court issued the TRO, the appeals court had no authority to touch any other aspect of this legal challenge until it reaches the next stage of litigation.
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) late on Feb. 3, ordering the federal government not to implement the president’s immigration measure.
Sunday morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to rule on whether to grant an emergency stay of that decision for almost another two days at minimum, during which the parties will file legal briefs arguing for and against the district judge’s TRO.
But there are problems with Robart’s TRO. For starters, he did not have jurisdiction to rule on at least several of the ten counts in the lawsuit..