A federal judge in Rhode Island rules that the state cannot sue to stop Trump’s executive order

HOFSTAFF, R.I. (AP) A federal court in Rhode Islanders ruling Tuesday that the State of Rhode Island cannot sue President Donald Trump to stop his executive order barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. has reignited a legal battle over the president’s controversial executive order.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a statement calling the ruling a “remarkable development” and expressing his gratitude to the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office.

“The executive order, as well as the actions of the Trump administration, are contrary to our values, to our laws, and to our national security,” Guterre said.

“It is also in the best interests of the United States to protect the public safety and well-being.”

The ruling by U.A.E. District Judge Mark DeCarlo is the first in a series of appeals by state attorneys general challenging Trump’s travel ban, which he signed into law in January and temporarily suspended in March.

The federal appeals court in Hawaii said the U tos are also violating federal law by not enforcing it.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court of the U-S has recognized the validity of the executive order and our duty to protect our citizens from terrorist attack,” Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said in a statement.

The U.K. High Court also agreed to hear an appeal by London’s Metropolitan Police Service, which has accused the president of “state-sponsored terror” for his executive orders and vowed to take legal action against the U in the coming days. “

Our attorneys are confident that we will be able to enforce our nation-wide travel ban while protecting our people and our freedoms.”

The U.K. High Court also agreed to hear an appeal by London’s Metropolitan Police Service, which has accused the president of “state-sponsored terror” for his executive orders and vowed to take legal action against the U in the coming days.

In the U., the Justice Department has asked a federal judge to stay the U’s injunction blocking the travel ban from taking effect.

U., however, filed a separate lawsuit Tuesday to prevent the U from enforcing the order.

In his ruling, DeCarla noted that the U does not need to defend the executive orders, which were issued without Congressional approval.

“Indeed, the Executive Order does not provide any such protection,” DeCarlato wrote.

“Its sole purpose is to prohibit entry into the United State by nationals of the seven countries named by the Executive order.

“The ruling also is a step in the right direction for the U, but the administration has been reluctant to take the step. “

A White House spokeswoman said Tuesday that there was no change to the administration’s strategy and that the administration was “proud of our hard work” on the litigation. “

The ruling also is a step in the right direction for the U, but the administration has been reluctant to take the step.

The State of Hawaii filed its own lawsuit against the administration. “

Today’s ruling means the executive action does not apply to U.k. nationals,” the spokeswoman said.

The State of Hawaii filed its own lawsuit against the administration.

The Hawaii lawsuit was filed last month, when the Trump-appointed attorney general’s office filed a lawsuit against Hawaii and its attorney general, who sued the president in federal court on the same issue.

In their lawsuit, the Hawaii attorneys general said the executive ban violated the First Amendment rights of people traveling abroad.

The White House and the U sued in federal district court in Honolulu on Monday.

The judge rejected the Hawaii case, which was stayed by a lower court.

The ruling is a significant victory for the Hawaii legal effort, said Tom Loughlin, a University of Hawaii law professor who teaches constitutional law and terrorism.

“This case is really about the First and Fourth Amendment rights,” Loughly said.

Trump said the Hawaii suit was “ridiculous” and said it was an attempt to “run the U.’s government out of business.”

He added that the Hawaii lawsuit would be thrown out “if we can get the case thrown out of court.”

“We’re going to get a good ruling,” he said.

In Hawaii, the attorney general sued Trump on the basis that the executive travel ban was unlawful.

Trump’s administration countersued, saying the executive act was constitutional.

Hawaii’s lawsuit is one of several federal lawsuits challenging Trump.

The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to consider the cases.

In February, the court agreed to review a separate Hawaii lawsuit filed by U and filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In that case, the ACLU argued that the Executive Executive Order violates the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.

“If a federal court were to find that the President’s Executive Order is constitutional, it would be an extraordinarily important step toward restoring public confidence in our nation and our courts,” the ACLU