Travel ban arguments focus on Trump's comments about Muslims

Reuters reported that a key issue in the court's deliberations could be whether it agrees with the lower court's decision to take past statements by Trump about the need for a Muslim ban into account. On Monday, Department of Justice attorneys will argue for the ban in the USA 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

He said the administration chose the countries subject to the ban because the present a terrorism risk to the United States.

While appeals courts tends to have a lower public profile, their role in adjudicating numerous orders and laws put forth by the administration is significant.

But Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said that could mean a candidate for president could call for a Muslim ban every day for a year, and enact a plan that accomplished that on his first day in office, and have courts disregard his objective. "In what sense is it neutral?" The countries selected for the ban are nearly all Muslim.

In regard to the statement listed on the campaign website, Spicer he wasn't "aware of what's on the campaign website", saying only that the administration has been consistent in talking about it as a "travel ban that's in this country's national security interest". This is the first time a federal appeals court has considered his revised March 9 version, which suspends entry into the USA for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Refugee groups and individuals separated from family members overseas said they are taking the president at his own word: trying to use public statements by Trump and his aides during the campaign and after to prove the order is motivated by religious animus.

Judges questioned the administration's national security justification for targeting the six countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - and about the relevance of Trump's statements before and after he took the oath of office.

President Donald Trump's troubled travel ban is now in the hands of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which grilled lawyers on both sides for two hours Monday.

Among the picks include 42-year-old David Stras, former law clerk for Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Also, the US refugee resettlement program would be suspended for 120 days, and the order sought to reduce the annual number of refugee admissions to 50,000 for fiscal year 2017, from the usual 110,000. "It's not a travel ban", he said at the time. They held signs that read "Refugees welcome" and "No ban, no wall" and chanted pro-immigrant messages that could be heard throughout the streets of downtown. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of that ruling later in the month.

At a Congressional hearing for the Senate judiciary subcommittee, which is investigating Russian interference in United States elections, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, read to Yates a federal statute that gives the president broad powers over restriction immigration, asking if it would be a "good idea" for the attorney general to defy the president's orders. Two judges recused themselves: Allyson Kay Duncan, a George W. Bush nominee, and J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan nominee.

US Fraternity Brothers Charged Over Horrific Hazing Death Of Pledge
The mission of the Piazza family now, Klein said, is to try to make sure what happened to their son will never happen again. A doctor calculated that Piazza's blood-alcohol content at the time he fell down the stairs was between.28 and.36 percent.

No court ruling is expected from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit Monday.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for May 15 in Seattle.

The president's first executive order restricting visitors from a handful of majority-Muslim countries provoked chaos at airports across the country in January.

Judges on the court based in Richmond, Va., on Monday returned over and over to remarks made by Trump during the campaign.

"The text [of the executive order] doesn't have to anything to do with religion", Wall said.

King said the government and the challengers, with their opposite views of the importance of Trump's campaign statements, "are like ships in the night".

The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center brought the case on behalf of several organizations, as well as people who live in the US and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.

Omar C. Jadwat, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, argued the plantiff's case. "The president is not allowed to set a policy that violates the establishment clause". "If this order were legitimate and actually doing what it said it was doing, it would do something different", he said.

Diverse organizations representing technology companies in MA, art museum directors, religious leaders and labor unions filed briefs opposing the administration's policy.

Elite universities, democratic attorneys general and former foreign policy and national security officials like ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called on the court to block the travel ban.

Latest News