Congress Considering Impeachment of Judge Who Reversed Trump Travel Ban

The White House issued a statement vowing to file for an emergency stay of a federal judge’s order to block President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration and refugees from high risk countries from the Middle East.

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate,” read a statement from Sean Spicer to reporters.

The statement explained that Trump’s order was issued under his constitutional authority to protect the American people.

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart took the unusual step of issuing a emergency stay of Trump’s order as the attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota filed a lawsuit to overturn the legislation.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, including what they say is discrimination against a particular religion.

But Trump defied the order, sending a message on Twitter on Saturday.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” he wrote.


While the White House continues its legal fight at the Appellate Level, members of Congress have begun taking a very hard look at District Judge Robart, for what may be “impeachable bad behavior.”

Robart is a US District Court Judge. DISTRICT Court. His jurisdiction rests solely in portions of Washington State. Yet the Judge declared that his restraining order “applies nationwide.” He does not have judicial authority “nationwide.”

Robart granted “legal standing” to two states which filed the legal case. In order to have legal standing, a person or corporation must be personally/directly affected. Neither Washington State nor Minnesota, two Plaintiffs in the case, can show that either “state” was affected at all. Perhaps citizens WITHIN each state may have been affected, but not “the states” themselves. So Robarts agreeing that the states have “legal standing” seems odious on its face.

Next, Robart decided the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed” in their lawsuit. This is so totally specious as to defy belief.

“The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that individual aliens outside the United States are “inadmissible”—or barred from admission to the country—on health, criminal, security, and other grounds set forth in the INA.

However, the INA also grants the Executive several broader authorities that could be used to exclude certain individual aliens or classes of aliens for reasons that are not specifically prescribed in the INA. Section 212(f) of the INA is arguably the broadest and best known of these authorities. It provides, in relevant part,:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.<span class="su-quote-cite"></span>

Over the years, Presidents have relied upon Section 212(f) to suspend or otherwise restrict the entry of individual aliens and classes of aliens, often (although not always) in conjunction with the imposition of financial sanctions upon these aliens. Among those so excluded have been aliens whose actions “threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya”; officials of the North Korean government; and aliens responsible for “serious human rights violations.”

Neither the text of Section 212(f) nor the case law to date suggests any firm legal limits upon the President’s exercise of his authority to exclude aliens under this provision.

The central statutory constraint imposed on Section 212(f)’s exclusionary power is that the President must have found that the entry of any alien or class of aliens would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The statute does not address (1) what factors should be considered in determining whether aliens’ entry is “detrimental” to U.S. interests; (2) when and how proclamations suspending or restricting entry should be issued; (3) what factors are to be considered in determining whether particular restrictions are “appropriate”; or (4) how long any restrictions should last.

The limited case law addressing exercises of presidential authority under Section 212(f) also supports the view that this provision confers broad authority to bar or impose conditions upon the entry of aliens. Key among these cases is the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in “Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.”, which held that the U.S. practice of interdicting persons fleeing Haiti outside U.S. territorial waters and returning them to their home country without allowing them to raise claims for asylum or withholding of removal did not violate the INA or the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

The U.S. practice had been established by Executive Order 12807, which was issued, in part, under the authority of Section 212(f) and “suspend[ed] the entry of aliens coming by sea to the United States without necessary documentation.”

However, depending on their scope, future executive actions under Section 212(f) could potentially be seen to raise legal issues that have not been prompted by the Executive’s prior exercises of this authority.

Beyond Section 212(f), other provisions of the INA can also be seen to authorize the Executive to restrict aliens’ entry to the United States. Most notably, Section 214(a)(1) prescribes that the “admission of any alien to the United States as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as [the Executive] may by regulations prescribe.”

Section 215(a)(1) similarly provides that “it shall be unlawful for any alien” to enter or depart the United States “except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” For example, President Carter cited Section 215(a)— rather than Section 212(f)—when authorizing the revocation of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas issued to Iranian citizens during the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Thus, US District Court Judge Robart seems to have usurped Presidential Power, made a ruling beyond his jurisdiction and granted legal standing to parties who don’t have any standing. This is what members of Congress are now reviewing to determine if Impeachment of the Judge is prudent.

39 thoughts on “Congress Considering Impeachment of Judge Who Reversed Trump Travel Ban

  • February 5, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Robarts was appointed by none other than George W. Bush…

    • February 6, 2017 at 1:04 am

      George W. Bush was way nicer than Obama when he appointed a judge designated by the state. That time the State of Washington choose a leftist … no wonder. Obama, on the other hand appointed all judges himself … for his chosen. All leftists.

    • February 6, 2017 at 3:17 am

      Who appointed him has no bearing on his current conduct, to be brutally blunt.

      Let’s not go there, please.

    • February 6, 2017 at 3:45 am

      Both of the president Bush’s are RINO’S they had the same agenda as the Clinton’s and President Obama, Globalization of America. I believe we will find that most of the judges appointed by Both he Bush’s are more Liberal than they let on, plus look at his senate hearings the Democrats loved him

    • February 6, 2017 at 5:15 am

      And this is what the Republicans get for trying to appease Democrats with questionable judges! They would have done better putting up a fight and getting a judge that bases his rulings on the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench!

  • February 5, 2017 at 11:01 pm

    Impeach the Judge responsible for overturning Trumps decision on travel ban

  • February 5, 2017 at 11:40 pm

    The Democrats aren’t a party anymore.. they are a DISEASE and need to be removed from humanity!
    This p.o.s. should be not just impeached.. but his career ruined forever!

    • February 6, 2017 at 12:31 am

      I agree! He is the President, therefore he is responsible for our safety! He is doing his job, this Judge doesn’t know what is on the briefing, I don’t think he is authorize to give an order nationwide , it is out of his jurisdiction! He is liberal and therefore making this a political orders! He should respect our President! The refugees doesn’t have a constitutional rights ! It only take 1 terrorists..acting as refugees..that can do harm to American people! I think we should remember the 1 muslims woman , who able to get a visa as a fiancee visa …that is the woman in San Berdino that killed those Americans! Extreme vetting should be allow and follow! Better safe than sorry! Impeach that judge!

  • February 6, 2017 at 12:28 am

    Treason of the worst kind! The white house needs to seek capital punishment for such a treasonous act which was committed upon the very highest level of the American Government. We need to send a message that America is a nation of laws at this point in time.

    • February 6, 2017 at 9:51 pm

      Mike – We have become a country of extremes (mostly left but some right). While I believe the President will ultimately prevail, the escalation to capital offense is not appropriate and simply adds fuel to the discourse. As to impeachment, I think we need to look at additional cases before deciding.

  • February 6, 2017 at 1:02 am

    What a liberal jerk. It’s obvious he’s corrupt like all the democrats. He needs to be impeached.

  • February 6, 2017 at 1:12 am

    He has overstepped his boundaries, impeach him.

    “Robart is a US District Court Judge. DISTRICT Court. His jurisdiction rests solely in portions of Washington State. Yet the Judge declared that his restraining order “applies nationwide.” He does not have judicial authority “nationwide.” “

  • February 6, 2017 at 1:20 am

    this makes sense appointed by Bush , this judge and judges like him will destroy are country , some thing need to be done life time appointment for nut jobs like this has to be changed

  • February 6, 2017 at 1:21 am

    Yes, impeach that fucking moron. He is ruling based on politics and not the law. Impeach that piece of shit and then get him disbarred.

  • February 6, 2017 at 1:35 am


  • February 6, 2017 at 1:41 am

    This judge has no right to over turn the president decision!!!! They must impeach this judge or the president will not be able to do his job!!

  • February 6, 2017 at 3:09 am

    there is an official petition to have judge roberts removed from power on

  • February 6, 2017 at 3:54 am

    I believe we will find that the Democratic Party has been taken over quietly by non other than, the Progressive Socialist of America and is funded by who else but George Soros, there is an agenda lurking in the shadows my fellow Ameicans

  • February 6, 2017 at 4:23 am

    Over ride this judges decision .trump is president and congress ok it .

  • February 6, 2017 at 4:29 am

    He needs impeached for doing to President and we the people.

  • February 6, 2017 at 4:34 am

    I’ told them that no one can stop what GOD, has said, look at it now, some media houses were so happy thinking that they can hold Trump, down, now we all can see, thank GOD for the Americans founding fathers, who make their Laws so unique, to cover their unborn children, GOD bless America, GOD bless Trump and families, and all supporters of Trump..

  • February 6, 2017 at 4:36 am

    absolutely he overstepped his jurisdiction by issuing a TRO nationwide

  • February 6, 2017 at 4:38 am

    The judge intentionally places the people of this country in harms way. He should be prosecuted, not impeached.

  • February 6, 2017 at 4:43 am

    Let them come to America like all immigrants who came here. It was called “ELLIS ISLAND” Somebody trying to keep AMERICA SAFE from people who want to kill Americans and Destroy America. What is the f’n problem. Actually to late. The “CHANGE” began 8 years ago which I voted for in ’08 but was not my kind of “HOPE & CHANGE” I was hoping for.

  • February 6, 2017 at 5:01 am

    If this is indeed true and the judge overstepped his authority, then he should be held accountable for not upholding the law as written. If being held accountable means he gets impeached, then so be it. No one, not even jugdes are above the law.

  • February 6, 2017 at 5:19 am

    Impeachment is comparable to an indictment, it would lead to an order to appear before congress to answer to certain allegations. The next step is trial before congress. Then, if convicted, removal from office, and any other penalties deemed appropriate by congress. One of those penalties could potentially involve disbarment.

  • February 6, 2017 at 5:25 am

    It would seam this judge overstepped his authority, he lost his objectivity and sense of the law.

  • February 6, 2017 at 6:01 am

    He should be released, he broke the rules. Hatch Act of 1939 amended in 2012.

  • Pingback: Friends Of Liberty: Congress Considering Impeachment of Judge Who Reversed Trump Travel Ban | Topcat1957's Blog

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.