Our top story on midday edition President Trump's campaign promises about Muslims have come back to him again. A panel of the ninth Circuit Court of euros is reviewing an order by a federal judge in Hawaii the blocked parts of the president second executive order on travel. The ban ordered that nationals of a ran Syria Sudan Somalia and Yemen not be allowed in the US for 90 days and block all refugees for 120 days. The band has -- is now on hold. Joining me is Danny. Welcome back. Thank you. This is the ninth time they have heard arguments about a version of the president's travel ban. What was different about this hearing. We are dealing with the second mural order that is presumably issued in response to the Ninth Circuit earlier board. This panel is going to have to deal with the actual merits of the contention. The bottom line is that the other court the Ninth Circuit panel that originally heard the panel to the original executive order did not really have to deal with that because there were some procedural issues that made it harder for the Trump administration to prevail. Once again the ban on Muslims played a big role in the hearing. How are the attorneys trying to minimize these statements in connection to the travel ban. They are saying that based on the nationality act of 1952 you really do not look behind what are the statements. I you look at is the text of the executive order. That is really the critical question. The question is whether you can ignore the campaign statements altogether and whether you look at the post inauguration statement which was a million-dollar question. Even if you ignore the campaign statements there are statements that remain after the inauguration which make it both the statutory and constitutional problematic order. That is the issue that the panel that heard this case yesterday will ultimately have to decide in deciding whether the district court order should be affirmed. Here is a sample of the government argued. To begin by asking. There is no case like this. I think in part because nobody has ever attempted to set aside a law that is neutral on its face and neutral an operation on the basis of largely campaign promises made by a private citizen running for office. That was Jeffrey wall. To the court seem to indicate that they have the general right to indicate for national security. That was really an interesting issue when you looked at the oral argument. If any other president had issued this order with all of this campaign statements. The answer that they had to concede was yes it would be okay. It would be how far behind the facially neutral order does the Ninth Circuit have to look. There was a very interesting plan family and the argument which is the order that stands. That was the infamous Japanese internment order that was a Japanese citizen. You are looking at will the neutral order must stand absent some of the president's statements. The to take into account the president's statements. A reasonable observer looks at the full context in which it was made including the campaign statement and to circuits that suggested that maybe there was some sort of focus on Muslims and issuing this latest executive order. We have some of the back-and-forth of the judge and here it is. One of the judges asked supposed to have been another individual who issued the same executive order and have not that all these things would pass constitutional muster. The most important thing is if you don't say the things you never wind up with an negative order like this. If not hypothetical arose I think it would be different. President Trump has in the past been highly critical of the Ninth Circuit. Who are the judges making up the panel. They're all Bill Clinton appointees. President Trump like a lot of disappointed litigant and disappointed players often produce this criticize the court that issued the role in. There are other issues in play and the respect has to be to the courts it is not clear just to be clear how the judges are going to roll. They were tough on both sides particularly on the side of Mr. will be acting Attorney General. It's not clear how this will come out. They will narrow the scope of the junction that was issued and that is something -- the assumption yesterday. And we are a couple of months away from the ruling on this. I will be surprised to see her role in before the end of the month. Then there is a question of what -- what of the ninth and the fourth circuit reach different conclusions. Honestly I would not be surprised if this went to the Supreme Court even if both courts which the same conclusion it is that important. I've been speaking with Dan. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Federal judges on Monday peppered a lawyer for President Donald Trump with questions about whether the administration's travel ban discriminates against Muslims and zeroed in on the president's campaign statements, the second time in a week the rhetoric has faced judicial scrutiny.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who is defending the travel ban, told a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that "over time, the president clarified that what he was talking about was Islamic terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor or shelter them." He argued that the executive order halting travel from six majority Muslim nations doesn't say anything about religion, and neither the state of Hawaii nor an imam from that state who wants his mother-in-law to visit has standing to sue.
"This order is aimed at aliens abroad, who themselves don't have constitutional rights," Wall said in a hearing broadcast live on C-Span and other news stations.
Neal Katyal, who represented Hawaii, scoffed at that argument and said Trump had repeatedly spoke of a Muslim ban during the presidential campaign and after.
"This is a repeated pattern of the president," Katyal said.
The 9th Circuit panel was hearing arguments over Hawaii's lawsuit challenging the travel ban, which would suspend the nation's refugee program and temporarily bar new visas for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The judges will decide whether to uphold a Hawaii judge's decision in March that blocked the ban.
Dozens of advocates for refugees and immigrants rallied outside the federal courthouse in Seattle, some carrying "No Ban, No Wall" signs.
Last week, judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether to affirm a Maryland judge's decision putting the ban on ice. They also questioned whether they could consider Trump's campaign statements, with one judge asking if there was anything other than "willful blindness" that would prevent them from doing so.
On Monday, Judge Richard Paez questioned Katyal about Trumps statements, calling them "profound." But the judge wondered whether Trump is forever forbidden from adopting an executive order along the lines of his travel ban.
Katyal said no, and suggested the president could work with Congress on legitimate measures.
Monday's arguments mark the second time Trump's efforts to restrict immigration from certain Muslim-majority nations have reached the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit.
After Trump issued his initial travel ban on a Friday in late January, bringing chaos and protests to airports around the country, a Seattle judge blocked its enforcement nationwide — a decision that was unanimously upheld by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel.
The president then rewrote his executive order, rather than appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in March, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu blocked the new version from taking effect, citing what he called "significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus" in Trump's campaign statements.
"Again, in this court, the President claims a nearly limitless power to make immigration policy that is all but immune from judicial review," Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin wrote to the 9th Circuit. "Again, he must be checked."
The administration's lawyers are seeking to persuade the judges that the lower court's decision is "fundamentally wrong," and that the president's order falls squarely within his duty to secure the nation's borders. The order as written is silent on religion, and neither Hawaii nor its co-plaintiff, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, has standing to sue, they say — arguments that were rejected in the lower court.
The travel ban cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court, but that would likely be cemented if the 4th and 9th Circuits reach differing conclusions about its legality. Because of how the courts chose to proceed, a full slate of 13 judges heard the 4th Circuit arguments last week, while just three, all appointees of President Bill Clinton, will sit in Seattle.
For that reason — with the possibility for myriad concurring or dissenting opinions — it could take the 4th Circuit longer to rule, noted Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond law school in Virginia.
