People protest U.S. President Donald Trump’s travel ban outside of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Seattle, Washington, U.S. May 15, 2017.
A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court heard case Monday against US President Donald Trump’s travel ban without giving an immediate ruling.
Spicer said Monday the executive order is fully lawful. At one point, Paez asked Katyal if the challengers could still win the case if the court didn’t consider the campaign statements.
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked if Trump had ever said he was wrong about calling for a Muslim ban on the campaign trail. It made Watson’s ruling the prevailing block to Trump’s plans, but one only created to last for about two weeks.
According to that ruling, speaking about a “Muslim ban” and speaking negatively about the religion’s relationship with the West mean that the plaintiffs had a high enough likelihood of proving a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to block the order.
Because the Ninth Circuit heard the case before a three-judge panel, and not the full membership of the court as the Fourth Circuit Court had done, it seems likely that the Fourth Circuit case might move more quickly to the Supreme Court.
“We believe these documents will show exactly how the Muslim ban that Donald Trump called for on the campaign trail turned into the executive order he issued a week after taking office”, said Miriam Aukerman, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of MI, in a statement.
In 2012. Hawkins joined Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s majority ruling striking down California’s gay marriage ban.
The administration has argued that presidents have wide authority over immigration matters and courts are forbidden from second-guessing the executive branch on matters of national security.
“Why shouldn’t we be deferential to what the president says?”
Wall was referring to Trump’s previous comments on Muslims, urging the judges to be objective despite what Trump may have said when he was still running for President.
Three ninth circuit judges questioned an attorney for the President about statements made during the campaign regarding Muslims. But the judge wondered whether Trump is forever forbidden from adopting an executive order along the lines of his travel ban.
Wall appeared taken aback by the comparison and said he would not have been standing in the courtroom if that was the kind of order before the court. Hawaii sued the Trump administration over the EO and won a temporary restraining order preventing the ban from being implemented.
Gould asked Katyal if the court could uphold Watson’s injunction based on the immigration law claims if the appeals court didn’t agree with the constitutional claim.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia heard arguments this month in a similar challenge of Trump’s travel ban. He asked government lawyer Wall if the Trump order was like the Roosevelt mandate. Both companies rallied to his cause, claiming the travel ban hurt their recruiting efforts, business operations, and reputations overseas.
The arguments were carried live on some cable news channels.
“Over time, the president clarified that what he was talking about were Islamic terrorist groups and the countries that shelter or sponsor them”, he said.
Judge Ronald Gould says each side has been allotted 30 minutes but will be granted more if necessary, given the significance of the case.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu blocked the revised ban.
The revised order temporarily suspend the nation’s refugee program and temporarily bars new visas for citizens of six predominately Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The case now awaits a written ruling from the judges, which could be appealed again to the supreme court.
Monday’s hearing was again before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which Trump has complained about before on Twitter, accusing the San Francisco-based circuit of having a “terrible record”.
However Neal Katyal, the attorney representing Hawaii, dismissed those arguments telling the judges that Trump clearly was singling out Muslims and that his campaign rhetoric was still relevant today.
