If this ruling is allowed to stand, the logical and eventual outcome would be that all US foreign policy decisions would have to be “vetted” by the courts. EVERY foreign policy decision could be claimed by states to “harm” them in some way. The President would have to gain prior approval from Judge Robart and Microsoft to make sure that they were OK with it and that they did not believe the order would cause them any “harm”.
Actually, ANY immigration related EO is going to have SOME effect on states. But, so what? Some states may believe the order harms them, but other states may believe the order helps them. The gauge by which foreign policy decisions should be measured is how such decisions affect the entire US and our security, not how such decisions may or may not affect any one state.
Another, and even more terrible result of this court ruling is that the ability of the President to respond to new and or emerging threats to the US would be emasculated, as the court, apparently, has no comprehension of the fact that the President operates on the basis of Top Secret classified information that should not usually even be shared with a district court.
Finally, the court seems to be conferring US Constitutional due process rights on persons in foreign countries who have no connection to the US. Would this not inevitably proscribe any military actions, such as drone strikes or other military actions taken in an attempt to kill terrorists abroad? Would we have to send Judge Robart or the 9th Circuit judges over to Yemen to confirm that each and every person we wanted to kill was OK to kill?
Aside from the fact that they completely ignored the clear relevant law in US Code on Presidential power to deny access to the US, this whole decision is absurd
Yes the decision hamstrings the President, which will be especially risky in time of war. The logical consequences of their decision is completely out of whack with how our foreign policies have been done in the last 200 years.