Trump Government defends travel ban in court: The interest of National Security
08 Feb 2017, 14:56 ( 10 Months ago) | updated: 08 Feb 2017, 15:16 ( 10 Months ago)
The US Department of Justice confronted sturdy interrogate Tuesday as it advocate a court of appeals to reestablish President Donald Trump's travel ban focusing on subjects of seven Muslim-majority countries-- put on hold by the courts last week.
The ultimate twist in the legal face-off comes four days after a federal judge suspended Trump's decree, unveiling US borders uphold to the thousands of refugees and travellers it had all of a sudden barred from the country.
Three judges from an appellate court in San Francisco preside over the hour-long phone hearing go after online by more than 130,000 masses -- a record, the court said -- and transmit live to millions more on TV.
The high-stakes hearing saw an attorney for the government traverse that Trump's immigration barrage were activated by national security concerns and that the federal judge had exceeded his authority in suspending them.
Tuesday's hearing ability was revolve around around whether to lift the suspension of the ban, not on the lawfulness of the decree itself - a more extensive fight which looks liable to go all the way to the Supreme Court. A court spokesman said a decision was likely later this week.
Throughout the hearing the three-judge board frequently seemed suspicious, with Judge Richard Clifton saying at one point that the government's contention was "pretty abstract"
The judges addressed Flentje about the proof associating the seven countries focused to terrorism, and squeezed him on whether the ban adds up to religious discrimination - as its adversaries assert.
Is it a Muslim ban?
The White House demands the declaration is in the interest concern for national security, giving the new administration time to strengthen look over course of action to keep potential terrorist out of the country.
Its critics assert that it violates the US Constitution by focusing on people based on their religion.
A lawyer illustrated to the state of Washington and Minnesota - which brought the federal lawsuit against Trump's restriction with support from various group of advocacy - encouraged the judges to keep the decree on hold while the case runs its course.
“It has always been the judicial branch’s role to say what the law is and to serve as a check on abuses by the executive branch,” said solicitor general Noah Purcell.
“That judicial rule has never been more important in recent memory than it is today, but the president is asking... to reinstate the executive order without full judicial review and throw this country back into chaos,” Purcell included.
Counsel of the states likewise come under sustained questioning, with Judge Clifton, a George W. Bush chosen one, seeming unconvinced by his contentions that the ban added up to religious discrimination.
“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Clifton stated, pointing out that under 15 percent of the world's Muslims were invaded.
Purcell contended that the states were not required to demonstrate that all Muslims would be invaded yet just that the ban was “motivated in part by a desire to harm Muslims.”
Trump's executive order barred passage to all refuges for 120 days, and to travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, activating bedlam at US airport terminals and condemnation of worldwide. Refugees from Syria are banned indefinitely.
‘We feel confident’
Seeming to lay the foundation for a mishap, the White House earlier Tuesday looked to play down the consequence of the forthcoming ruling.
“All that’s at issue tonight is the hearing is an interim decision on whether the president’s order is enforced or not until the case is heard on the actual merits of the order,” told White House representative Sean Spicer.
“That’s why I think we feel confident.”
Facilitating a gathering of American sheriffs at the White House on Tuesday, Trump pounded home the reasoning of his decree as "common sense."
Trump has lashed out at the Seattle judge who suspended his order, James Robart, as an "so-called" judge - a slur that drew criticism from his own Republican camp - and looked to stick fault on him, and courts in general, for US soil in potential future attack.
“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!” he tweeted on Sunday.
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system.
pouring in. Bad!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017