U.S. District Judge James Robart temporarily suspended a controversial executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The Seattle Times reports that the ruling made in a federal court on Friday was a major victory for a lawsuit filed by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Ferguson said. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

The lawsuit, filed on January 30, claims that Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations violates the U.S. Constitution. The nationwide travel ban was put on hold after the State of Minnesota joined the lawsuit requesting a restraining order.

The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, failed to convince the Seattle federal judge that Trump’s executive order has not harmed U.S. citizens. The judge granting the suspension of Trump’s executive order on immigration was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration played down reports that chaos in airports after Trump signed the executive order was as bad as it looked. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the damage was minimal.

“Three hundred and twenty-five thousand people flew into this country from airports and 109 people were affected and slowed down in their travel,” Spicer said. “I understand that is an inconvenience, but at the end of the day that is a small price to pay as opposed to somebody losing their life because a terrorist attack was admitted.”

Multiple reports have emerged contradicting statements made by the Trump administration. It’s unclear exactly how many visas were suspended after Trump signed the controversial executive order, but the number could be as high as 100,000 and as low as 50,000.

The suspension of Trump’s executive order in a federal court was a result of Washington and Minnesota arguing that U.S. citizens have been injured by Trump’s executive order.

Washington and Minnesota aren’t the only two states winning legal battles against the executive order suspending the U.S. refugee program and imposing a travel ban for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.

New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia filed separate lawsuits this week. Each state’s attorney general has the legal power to file broad lawsuits on behalf of their state’s citizens.

Politico reports that a federal court in Virginia on Friday rejected efforts made by the Justice Department to settle a case on behalf of green card holders detained at Dulles Airport.

“It’s obvious that [Trump’s executive order] put hundreds of thousands of people into a state of great discomfort,” U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said. “People are really upset.”

Chicago Tribune reports that Ferguson is calling for provisions to Trump’s executive order to be thrown out.

The biggest unanswered question is, what happens next? Friday’s ruling in Seattle is a major defeat for Trump’s executive order moving forward. The case will likely be appealed by the Trump administration. It also likely the case will ultimately make it to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling against Trump’s executive order a major victory for all Americans.

“This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us who believe this un-American executive order will not make us safer,” Schumer said.

A visa that was rescinded after Trump’s executive order could potentially be reinstated very soon. The immense legal implications of a federal judge temporarily overturning an executive order signed by the president will no doubt bring clarity to the future of Trump’s travel ban sooner than later. </s> WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Monday laid out its first significant legal defense of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, arguing in a court filing that the harm opponents say it causes is "speculative" and that the president was well within his authority to issue the directive.

Responding to a lawsuit by Hawaii, Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump's new executive order solves any possible legal problems that came with the first one, because it is narrower in scope and outlines a robust list of people who might be exempted.

"Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the sweeping relief they seek," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Opponents of Trump's executive order have asked federal judges in several states to block the administration from enforcing the directive, and two judges have scheduled hearings for Wednesday to hear arguments on the matter. The order -- which suspends the U.S.' refugee program and bars the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- is set to take effect Thursday unless a court intervenes.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selectedimmigration statistics, U.S. border map]

Hawaii was the first state to sue over the directive, arguing that the new executive order, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damages the state's robust tourism industry.

In support of Hawaii's lawsuit, several states, as well as Washington, D.C., filed documents in federal court Monday saying they want to collectively file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief.

The states are Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

A federal judge in Honolulu is to hear the motion Wednesday.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

Hawaii's lawyers pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the economic harm alleged by the state was "mere speculation" and that Elshikh's mother-in-law had no reason to sue because she had not been denied a waiver to enter the country. The new executive order, unlike the old, spelled out a list of people who might be granted exemptions, including those seeking to visit or live with family in the United States.

"The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "Among other things, therefore, plaintiffs cannot show that any individual whom they seek to protect is in imminent risk of being denied entry due to the Order."

The state will have to convince a judge that Trump's ban is likely to ultimately be found unconstitutional and that it will impose immediate, irreparable harm unless it is stopped. A hearing in the case is Wednesday afternoon.

Federal judges in Washington state and Maryland were also considering separate challenges to the new ban, and either could pre-empt the need for action in Hawaii. A hearing in the Maryland case is Wednesday morning, and Washington on Monday formally asked a judge to enforce his freeze of the previous ban on the new one and to schedule a hearing for today.

"While the new section differs from the original by excluding Iraqis, lawful permanent residents, and visa-holders, it bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries, including: relatives of U.S. citizens, students who have been admitted to state universities, prospective employees of state universities and private businesses, and many others," lawyers for Washington wrote. "This Court's original injunction protected these individuals and institutions, and the Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants' request to narrow the injunction to exclude them."

The administration has argued that the ban is necessary for national security reasons, though many diplomatic and national security professionals have said they disagree with that assessment and that the new ban would probably not have kept out anyone responsible for a fatal terrorist attack since 2001.

In their filing, Justice Department lawyers pointed to 300 people who entered the United States as refugees and are under investigation in terrorism-related cases, and asserted that hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted of such offenses.

"More fundamentally, plaintiffs miss the point," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The Order's objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks before they occur. And that is precisely why the Order focuses on six countries that Congress and the prior Administration recently determined pose the greatest risk of terrorist infiltration in the future."

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently blocked the administration from enforcing the order with respect to one family. In that case, a man who had fled Syria and been granted asylum in the United States sued so the ban would not be applied to his wife and 3-year-old daughter, who are still in Aleppo and have asylum applications being processed.

The judge ruled that the family had "some likelihood of success on the merits" and that the man was "at great risk of suffering irreparable harm" if the order were not blocked, so far as it applied to his family.

Information for this article was contributed by staff members of The Associated Press. </s> A United States federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary nationwide restraining order on Friday stopping President Trump's executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States.

The Judge, James Robart, who was appointed by former President George Bush in 2003, ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

"It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does," Ferguson added.

The ruling, made at the request of Washington and Minnesota, is the broadest to date against Trump's executive order.

Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit three days after Trump signed the executive order. The suit argued that the travel ban targets Muslims and violates constitutional rights of immigrants and their families.
U.S. federal judges in the states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington sign orders halting implementation of parts of the executive order.