So-Called Judge Blocks Trump's So-Called Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Below is what happened on Trump's eleventh day in office. You can find out what damage was done every other day so far on the Saddest Calendar on the Internet.

"The EO adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel," Robart's decision reads. "These harms extend to the states by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders." Ultimately, he says the court must intervene "to fulfill its constitutional role," and he blocked Trump's Muslim ban.

In a move surprising no one, Trump took his anger to Twitter. "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" he tweeted, attempting to undermine the power of the federal judiciary, and he made an appeal.

Early Sunday morning, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the appeal. Upon learning of the news, Trump again tweeted that Robart had endangered the US, and that "if something happens blame him and court system." Today, we'll likely learn of new developments.

According to Al Jazeera, "The White House and two US states legally challenging the ban—Washington and Minnesota—have until [today] to present further evidence backing up their respective arguments," the article reads. "Then, the court could schedule a hearing or rule on whether the ban should remain suspended."

At the center of these rulings, according to the New York Times, is the question: "How much independent constitutional authority does the president have over immigration, and how much power has Congress given him?" While Trump undeniably has quite a bit, we'll likely see exactly how much. The decision "could leave a mark on the law for generations and seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision," the article reads.

In the meantime, Trump will likely continue to push the boundaries of what is legal under the Constitution. Because he's more content to flip through "a book that [offers] him 17 window covering options" than policy memos, he isn't likely going to familiarize himself with the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, established through Marbury v. Madison in 1803. However, he could benefit from a close reading of a few sentences in Robart's decision.

"The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches," Robart writes in the conclusion. "That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country's laws, and more importantly, our Constitution."

That's Bleak. Who's Fighting Against It?

Last night, 96 companies filed legal documents opposing the Muslim Ban, according to Gizmodo.