SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson spoke to reporters on Friday after a federal judge ruled in his favor in a lawsuit brought against an executive order issued by President Trump. (Photo: Associated Press)
Muslim Ban Blocked: Federal Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Trump Order
"No one is above the law — not even the president," said the attorney general of Washington state after the restraining order was issued
Feb 03, 2017
A federal judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction late Friday against President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration--widely denounced as a travel ban targeting Muslims and refugees from war-torn states--that stirred airport protests across the U.S. last weekend and dozens of lawsuits and legal challenges throughout the week.
In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled in favor of a challenge brought by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who sued the Trump administration earlier this week to invalidate key provisions of the executive order that barred entry to individuals from seven Muslim-majority nations.
\u201cAG Ferguson obtains Restraining Order immediately halting Trump immigration Executive Order nationwide.\u201d— Attorney General Bob Ferguson (@Attorney General Bob Ferguson) 1486165486
"The Constitution prevailed today," Ferguson said in remarks to reporters on the federal courthouse steps after Judge Robart's ruling. "No one is above the law -- not even the president."
Though the injunction only comes in the form of a "temporary restraining order" until the court can fully vet the state's challenge, the news was received with applause from those challenging the ban. According to a statement from the AG's office: "The Temporary Restraining Order will remain in place until [Robart] considers the Attorney General's lawsuit challenging key provisions of the President's order as illegal and unconstitutional. If Ferguson prevails, the Executive Order would be permanently invalidated nationwide."
In his ruling, Robart stated the temporary restraining order was warranted after the state successfully proved its argument that Trump's order was causing "immediate and irreparable injury"; that it would do more harm to keep it place than to halt it; and that the state had additionaly proven its substantial likelihood of success in challenging the constitutionality of the travel ban.
"The executive order adversely affects the states' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel," Robart stated in his written ruling. "These harms are significant and ongoing."
Though the White House immediately vowed to appeal the decision, and sought an immediate stay against Robart's restraining order, legal experts and opponents of the travel restrictions immediately praised the decision as an important legal victory and stinging rebuke of Trump's position.
"This ruling further demonstrates that the Executive Order was not adequately thought out," said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, which opposed the ban. "The Order should be paused and existing vetting and visa systems, which have proved their worth, should be left in place."
On the immediate implications, the Seattle Times reports how:
Jorge Baron, director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said he was advising people who have been stranded outside the United States because of the ban to use Robart's ruling to try to return. But, he also cautioned it's a very fluid situation.
"You might get on a plane and there might be a different ruling in the middle, we warn people that there's a chance of that happening," Baron said. "At the same time, I'd also want to make sure that people who are trying to be reunified with their families are taking advantage of this ruling."
Given a separate ruling in Massachusetts earlier on Friday, it's quite possible that the disparate challenges to Trump's order could ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction late Friday against President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration--widely denounced as a travel ban targeting Muslims and refugees from war-torn states--that stirred airport protests across the U.S. last weekend and dozens of lawsuits and legal challenges throughout the week.
In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled in favor of a challenge brought by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who sued the Trump administration earlier this week to invalidate key provisions of the executive order that barred entry to individuals from seven Muslim-majority nations.
\u201cAG Ferguson obtains Restraining Order immediately halting Trump immigration Executive Order nationwide.\u201d— Attorney General Bob Ferguson (@Attorney General Bob Ferguson) 1486165486
"The Constitution prevailed today," Ferguson said in remarks to reporters on the federal courthouse steps after Judge Robart's ruling. "No one is above the law -- not even the president."
Though the injunction only comes in the form of a "temporary restraining order" until the court can fully vet the state's challenge, the news was received with applause from those challenging the ban. According to a statement from the AG's office: "The Temporary Restraining Order will remain in place until [Robart] considers the Attorney General's lawsuit challenging key provisions of the President's order as illegal and unconstitutional. If Ferguson prevails, the Executive Order would be permanently invalidated nationwide."
In his ruling, Robart stated the temporary restraining order was warranted after the state successfully proved its argument that Trump's order was causing "immediate and irreparable injury"; that it would do more harm to keep it place than to halt it; and that the state had additionaly proven its substantial likelihood of success in challenging the constitutionality of the travel ban.
"The executive order adversely affects the states' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel," Robart stated in his written ruling. "These harms are significant and ongoing."
Though the White House immediately vowed to appeal the decision, and sought an immediate stay against Robart's restraining order, legal experts and opponents of the travel restrictions immediately praised the decision as an important legal victory and stinging rebuke of Trump's position.
"This ruling further demonstrates that the Executive Order was not adequately thought out," said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, which opposed the ban. "The Order should be paused and existing vetting and visa systems, which have proved their worth, should be left in place."
On the immediate implications, the Seattle Times reports how:
Jorge Baron, director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said he was advising people who have been stranded outside the United States because of the ban to use Robart's ruling to try to return. But, he also cautioned it's a very fluid situation.
"You might get on a plane and there might be a different ruling in the middle, we warn people that there's a chance of that happening," Baron said. "At the same time, I'd also want to make sure that people who are trying to be reunified with their families are taking advantage of this ruling."
Given a separate ruling in Massachusetts earlier on Friday, it's quite possible that the disparate challenges to Trump's order could ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
A federal judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction late Friday against President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration--widely denounced as a travel ban targeting Muslims and refugees from war-torn states--that stirred airport protests across the U.S. last weekend and dozens of lawsuits and legal challenges throughout the week.
In Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled in favor of a challenge brought by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who sued the Trump administration earlier this week to invalidate key provisions of the executive order that barred entry to individuals from seven Muslim-majority nations.
\u201cAG Ferguson obtains Restraining Order immediately halting Trump immigration Executive Order nationwide.\u201d— Attorney General Bob Ferguson (@Attorney General Bob Ferguson) 1486165486
"The Constitution prevailed today," Ferguson said in remarks to reporters on the federal courthouse steps after Judge Robart's ruling. "No one is above the law -- not even the president."
Though the injunction only comes in the form of a "temporary restraining order" until the court can fully vet the state's challenge, the news was received with applause from those challenging the ban. According to a statement from the AG's office: "The Temporary Restraining Order will remain in place until [Robart] considers the Attorney General's lawsuit challenging key provisions of the President's order as illegal and unconstitutional. If Ferguson prevails, the Executive Order would be permanently invalidated nationwide."
In his ruling, Robart stated the temporary restraining order was warranted after the state successfully proved its argument that Trump's order was causing "immediate and irreparable injury"; that it would do more harm to keep it place than to halt it; and that the state had additionaly proven its substantial likelihood of success in challenging the constitutionality of the travel ban.
"The executive order adversely affects the states' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel," Robart stated in his written ruling. "These harms are significant and ongoing."
Though the White House immediately vowed to appeal the decision, and sought an immediate stay against Robart's restraining order, legal experts and opponents of the travel restrictions immediately praised the decision as an important legal victory and stinging rebuke of Trump's position.
"This ruling further demonstrates that the Executive Order was not adequately thought out," said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, which opposed the ban. "The Order should be paused and existing vetting and visa systems, which have proved their worth, should be left in place."
On the immediate implications, the Seattle Times reports how:
Jorge Baron, director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said he was advising people who have been stranded outside the United States because of the ban to use Robart's ruling to try to return. But, he also cautioned it's a very fluid situation.
"You might get on a plane and there might be a different ruling in the middle, we warn people that there's a chance of that happening," Baron said. "At the same time, I'd also want to make sure that people who are trying to be reunified with their families are taking advantage of this ruling."
Given a separate ruling in Massachusetts earlier on Friday, it's quite possible that the disparate challenges to Trump's order could ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
US Court Orders Return of Man Trump Sent to Salvadoran Prison in 'Error'
"How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are," said one lawyer.
Apr 04, 2025
A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the return of a Maryland resident who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, according to The Associated Press.
Prior to issuing the ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia "an illegal act."
The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, gave the Trump administration end of the day of the day on Monday to bring him back to the United States.
Supporters outside the courtroom cheered as the judge handed down her order, according to The Washington Post.
Responding to the ruling on social media, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "This is a big win. Now Trump must comply with the judge's order."
Immigration lawyer Ava Benach wrote: "The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are."
The right decision. How the government reacts will tell us so much about how far down the road to autocracy we are.
[image or embed]
— avabenach.bsky.social (@avabenach.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of people the administration expelled in mid-March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador after targeting them for alleged gang ties.
In a court papers filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting field office director admitted that the removal of Abrego Garcia on March 15 "was an error."
Abrego Garcia was deported despite the fact that in 2019, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could not be deported to his native El Salvador because he would likely face gang persecution there.
Amid Trump Tariff Chaos, DOGE 'Minions' Infiltrate Federal Trade Commission
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed."
Apr 04, 2025
The latest U.S. agency in the crosshairs of billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is reportedly the Federal Trade Commission, an already-understaffed department tasked with preventing monopolistic practices and shielding consumers from corporate abuses.
Axios reported Friday that at least two DOGE staffers "now have offices at" the FTC. According to The Verge, two DOGE members "were spotted" at the agency's building this week and "are now listed in the FTC's internal directory."
The Verge noted that the FTC is "a fairly lean agency with fewer than 1,200 employees," a number that the Trump administration has already cut into with the firing of some of the department's consumer protection and antitrust staff.
At least two of Musk's companies, Tesla and X, have faced scrutiny in recent years from the FTC, which is now under the leadership of Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson, who previously pledged to roll back former chair Lina Khan's anti-monopoly legacy.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, which referred to the operatives as Musk's "minions," said Friday that "DOGE is yet again raiding a federal watchdog tasked with protecting working Americans from Wall Street and Big Tech."
"The FTC has worked to stop monopolistic mergers that would have led to higher grocery prices and is now gearing up to go to court against Meta's social media monopoly," said Peterson-Cassin. "It's no surprise that at this moment, while the economy is in freefall and fraud is on the rise, DOGE is choosing to raid the federal watchdog that protects everyday Americans and threatens corporate monopolies and grifters."
News of DOGE staffers' infiltration of the FTC came as Trump's sweeping new tariffs continued to cause global economic turmoil and heightened concerns that companies in the U.S. will use the tariffs as a new excuse to jack up prices and pad their bottom lines.
Ferguson pledged in a social media post Thursday that under his leadership, the FTC "will be watching closely" to ensure companies don't view Trump's tariffs "as a green light for price fixing or any other unlawful behavior."
But Trump has hobbled the agency—and prompted yet another legal fight—by firing its two Democratic commissioners, a move that sparked fury and has already impacted the FTC's ability to pursue cases against large corporations.
Peterson-Cassin said Friday that "the only winners" of DOGE's targeting of the FTC "are Trump's billionaire besties like [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg and especially Musk, who now stands to gain access to confidential financial information about every company ever investigated by the FTC, including the auto manufacturers, aerospace firms, internet providers, tech companies, and banks that directly compete with his own companies."
"Corporations get let off the hook, Musk gets insider information, and the American people get hosed," Peterson-Cassin added.
'There Will Be Blood': JPMorgan Hikes Odds of Trump-Triggered Recession to 60%
"The president single-handedly wiped out Americans' retirement savings overnight and subjected businesses to intense whiplash with his increasingly erratic and chaotic policies that continue to drive consumer and business uncertainty."
Apr 04, 2025
Alarm over U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs continues to grow, with stocks plummeting and JPMorgan warning that "the risk of recession in the global economy this year is raised to 60%, up from 40%."
After China announced new 34% tariffs on all American goods beginning next week, The Associated Press reported Friday that "the S&P 500 was down 4.8% in afternoon trading, after earlier dropping more than 5%, following its worst day since Covid wrecked the global economy in 2020. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 1,719 points, or 4.3%, as of 1:08 p.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 4.9% lower."
Noting the state of Wall Street this week, Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens declared in a Friday statement that "Trump has officially brought the economy to its knees."
"The president single-handedly wiped out Americans' retirement savings overnight and subjected businesses to intense whiplash with his increasingly erratic and chaotic policies that continue to drive consumer and business uncertainty," she said. "To call this an economic downturn is an understatement; Trump is marching us straight into a depression."
Political and economic observers have been publicly wondering for weeks if Trump is intentionally crashing the economy. Further fueling those fears, he ramped up his trade war on Wednesday by announcing a minimum 10% tariff for imports, with higher levies for dozens of countries. Although he claimed those steeper duties are "reciprocal," his math "horrified" economists and has been called "crazy."
Responding in a Thursday note titled, There Will Be Blood, head of global economic research Bruce Kasman and other experts at JPMorgan wrote that "if sustained, this year's ~22%-point tariff increase would be the largest U.S. tax hike since 1968."
"The effect of this tax hike is likely to be magnified—through retaliation, a slide in U.S. business sentiment, and supply chain disruptions," states the note, which came before China's announcement.
As Bloomberg reported:
Several Wall Street firms on Thursday warned of a U.S. recession, with some making it their base case, after... Trump announced major levies on goods imported from countries around the world. Other economists, including those at JPMorgan, said the hit could be big, though they are taking a wait-and-see approach before revising their projections.
The announcement rocked global financial markets, and the S&P 500 suffered its worst day since 2020. Trump, speaking on Air Force One on Thursday afternoon, said he was open to reducing tariffs if trading partners were able to offer something "phenomenal."
"We are not making immediate changes to our forecasts and want to see the initial implementation and negotiation process that takes hold," the JPMorgan note says. "However, we view the full implementation of announced policies as a substantial macroeconomic shock not currently incorporated in our forecasts. We thus emphasize that these policies, if sustained, would likely push the U.S. and possibly global economy into recession this year."
The team also pointed out that the United States is in potential danger no matter how other countries are ultimately impacted, calling a "scenario where rest of world muddles through a U.S. recession possible but less likely than global downturn."
As Common Dreams reported last week, in anticipation of Trump's tariff announcement, Goldman Sachs published a research note projecting that the odds of a recession in the next year are 35%, up from 20%.
Other financial industry research firms that have recently warned of a possible recession include Barclays, BofA Global Research, Deutsche Bank, RBC Capital Markets, and UBS Global Wealth Management, according to Reuters.
"This is a game-changer, not only for the U.S. economy, but for the global economy. Many countries will likely end up in a recession," Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings, said in a late Wednesday note about the levies. "You can throw most forecasts out the door, if this tariff rate stays on for an extended period of time."
Experts have made similar comments to the press in the wake of the president's Rose Garden remarks on Wednesday. Time on Friday shared some from Brian Bethune, a Boston College economics professor:
"[Consumers] are not even going to the grocery store and paying more for vegetables because there's none available from Mexico, or going to Whole Foods, for example, and finding the big sections of fresh fruit are being shut down. They haven't really felt the full impact [yet], and they're already saying something isn't right," Bethune says.
However, while some economists... are more cautious in their discussion about a possible recession, Bethune says it's "inevitable." The question, he says, is just how long until it happens and for how long will it occur? He sees Trump's admission of there being " some pain" on the horizon as only proof of the inevitability.
"At least they [the Trump administration] are not pretending that it's not disruptive, but they're basically soft-selling it, reflecting their ignorance about the way business operates," Bethune claims.
Also on Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest U.S. jobs data. Although the unemployment rate rose from 4.1% to 4.2% in March, the economy added 228,000 jobs, which was better than expected.
However, economists warn of what lies ahead. As University of Michican economics professor Betsey Stevenson put it, "Today's jobs report is like looking at your vacation photos after you had a horrible car crash on the way home."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.