A federal judge on Monday denied the Justice Department’s request to delay a hearing on the first phase of President Trump’s executive order blocking immigration and refugee admissions from six Muslim-majority countries

The filing was an effort by the Trump administration to prevent a would-be legal who plans to mass-arrest Muslim Americans from obtaining a U.S. visa to give statements at the Feb. 3 court session, which was initially scheduled for Oct. 18.

The move cast into doubt the government’s position that it would be unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution for the court to consider possibly endorsing a Muslim protester’s rights to free speech because he is criticizing the president — the side of the argument squarely at odds with the Trump administration’s insistence that the order was not intended to discriminate against Muslims.

“We politely disagree with the State’s denial of an extension of this court’s stay,” Nancy Northup, president and founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights, tells U.S. News in a statement about Judge James Robart’s ruling to deny the request to delay the court session. “Our clients are refugee and immigrant youth who have fled the same violence, terror and wars that our government is persecuting Kurds and religious minorities in in the Middle East and no judge will prevent us from testifying at their detention hearings.”

Nevertheless, the Trump administration’s legal team says it will continue to fight the matter and remains confident of winning the appeal that normally would allow the executive order to become effective Oct. 18.

Northup notes that the hearing – and subsequent courtroom arguments – “would have been very difficult, given the controversy surrounding” it. Rather than garnering sympathy for the Muslim plaintiffs, the court hearing “might have had the opposite effect,” the legal group added.

The Justice Department appeared close to winning Baker case

Judge Robart said in his 22-page ruling that while the Justice Department is under a legal obligation to respond to the petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO), his decision was “based on federal district court jurisdiction.” He also ruled that the Justice Department’s arguments about the constitutionality, and in particular anti-discrimination clauses, are “so belied by reason and experience” that the ACLU could be considered a “state actor.” While the Justice Department has argued that the executive order is needed to prevent terrorism, and was not intended to discriminate based on religion, Judge Robart said there is “strong evidence that the existing executive order was likely motivated by animus toward Muslims, a motivating factor that is expressly excluded” from the executive order.

Judge Robart gave the administration one more Chance to defend ban

Judge Robart gave the Trump administration a final chance to defend the ban

“The government will play its turn in the Ninth Circuit in my courtroom,” Judge Robart said. “But on the merits, it is not possible to square the government’s telling of the Ninth Circuit that the court has no jurisdiction with its own statement.”

Justice Dept., adj. strikes deal with ‘Muslim ban’ plaintiffs

This is not the first time the Justice Department has been tapped by the state of Hawaii to defend the executive order in the Ninth Circuit. In August, Judge Derrick Watson of the Ninth Circuit accepted the Justice Dept.’s offer to intervene in defending the scope of the travel ban. Defending the Justice Dept. is among the top priorities for the DOJ’s civil claims practice unit in Missouri due to the fact that 80 percent of the department’s litigation involves complex civil rights defenses, Reuters noted on Monday.

The appeals court also refused to postpone the hearing regarding the immigration complete ban 9th Circuit requested. Trump plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Who is back of the underway panic?

Back of the already trending? Ann Coulter is panning the story of an Armenian man being deported from the US due to his religion:

Pity immigration consulates and consular staff. They work extraordinarily hard to make sure the country is safe.

I can’t recall a single case in which I heard about such ghoulish enforcement in Europe. I’m sure a synagogue in Freiburg Germany had Muslims before the Nazis came.

The illegal aliens were improperly apprehended because the administration was outclinking Syria, Somalia, Libya and Sudan, which were the three Middle Eastern countries the Obama administration had designated as a ground zero for bad people turning in their measles, cholera, and treat-able communicable diseases.

Only happy news…

When a major story directly impacts U.S. citizens, the moment can be unnerving and embarrassing. Suddenly, everyone is standing in front of their monitors, asking — as a group — “what the hell happened?” It’s no wonder the nation has become exceptionally apathetic regarding the Russia collusion story, however.