Letter: Ruling follows appropriate process

By

Published:

 

A Feb. 9 letter, “Ruling appears partisan,” reflects a misunderstanding of our legal system.

The judge who granted an injunction on Trump’s travel ban did not “do this on his own.” A lawsuit was filed challenging the travel ban. The case was assigned to Federal District Court Judge James Robart, a 2004 Bush appointee. The plaintiffs who sued requested an “injunction” blocking enforcement of the travel ban, an injunction being a common legal remedy sought to prevent irreparable harm. Robart granted the injunction blocking the travel ban applying normal rules of a court. Granting injunctive relief is in no way overreaching. Nothing indicates it was partisan.

Can another court overrule this? Yes. Trump had the right to appeal, as any litigant does. Trump appealed. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed Robart’s injunction and refused to overturn it, again applying standard rules and legal analysis. Trump may ask the Supreme Court to review the decision. The court may agree to review or not.

The president’s attacks against the judge undermine our judicial system. Disagreeing with a ruling is one thing — slandering a judge is another. It attacks the integrity of the legal system, the effectiveness of which separates us from so many other nations. Trump’s failure to respect our legal institutions calls into question his competency.