‘Ain’t no such thing as too many lawyers’: Judge defends the Trump administration’s defense of the president’s travel ban

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington State ruled against President Donald Trump’s order restricting entry to the United States for all refugees, immigrants and visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Judge James Robart, a Trump appointee, said the ban violates the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and is not “comprehensive” enough to prevent the country from being “deported.”

The judge said that while the president could have done a better job articulating his intent to exclude certain countries, his order is “unreasonably and unnecessarily” restrictive.

Robart issued a 72-page opinion in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, arguing that the executive order is a violation of the federal Constitution and has the potential to prevent states from enforcing immigration laws.

Robarts decision is the latest legal challenge to the president, who has repeatedly criticized the courts and the judiciary for their “so-called judges” rulings on his executive order.

Robart said the Trump’s lawyers could have avoided his order’s restrictions by asking a federal appeals court to review the constitutionality of it and the scope of the executive authority the president exercises.

“It is not reasonable or consistent with the purposes of this order to require federal judges to decide on this issue before they have a chance to determine whether the ban has the force it purports to have,” Robart wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.