justsomeantifas:

justsomeantifas:

Here’s what happened during the hearing on Trump’s travel ban (2/7/2017)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is hearing arguments which started at 6 p.m. Eastern on whether to restore President Trump’s controversial immigration order. Note this hearing is NOT covering whether or not the ban is unconstitutional, it’s about  the suspension of the travel ban and whether or not it will stay in place. Note, if the appeals court sides with the White House then Trump’s executive order will be immediately reinstated and cause chaos similar to what we saw the weekend it rolled out. It the appeals court sides with the states then it maintains the freeze on the executive order.

• Homeland Security Secretary, John Kelly, spoke in favor of the ban saying that “I have nothing but respect for our judges, but they live in a different world than I do.” He also said that he would have improved the roll out of the ban but blamed the confusion at the airports on the protesters.
• August E. Flentje, Justice Department special counsel, also defended the ban saying that it’s only a “temporary pause” and that Congress and “the last president” recognized these area pose special risk. 
• The judges then pressed the government’s lawyer, August Flentje, to justify the ban. Flentje said the president has the ultimate authority and at one point said his determination was “unreviewable.”
• Judge Friedland wondered whether the government was arguing that the judges COULD NOT EVEN ASK for evidence that those entering from the seven countries named in the order posed a special risk. After Flentje said that evidence might be coming, Judge Friedland wondered why the restraining order on the ban should not remain in place until this “evidence” comes.
• The judges involved all seem to believe that the states have every right to challenge the travel ban. 
• The judges then asked Flentje what would happen if Trump outright said “We’re not going to let any Muslims in,” and asked if Flentje believes he could do that and if anyone would be able to challenge it. Flentje responded by saying that “that’s not what the order does here,” and “this is a far cry from that situation.”
• The state’s lawyers then accused the Trump administration of flip-flopping on the ban, how it’s defined, and who it includes. One state lawyer, Noah Purcell of Washington, argued that reinstating the ban could potentially apply to vast groups of people again unless explicitly altered. “Until they change the order to make that crystal clear, they can’t just say, ‘Well now that doesn’t’ apply to them so don’t worry about it,” said Purcell.
• Washington’s Noah Purcell argued that the order violated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. One judge (Judge Clifton) argued with Purcell, stating that the seven countries in the ban only accounted for a small percentage of Muslims worldwide and pressed Purcell to explain how this order amounts to a “Muslim ban.“ 
  Judge Clifton: “Do you assert that that decision by the previous administration and congress as religiously motivated?” 
  Purcell: No. But the president called for a complete ban on Muslims.”
  Judge Clifton: “Is this that ban?” 
  Purcell: “No, we’re not saying this is a complete ban on Muslims entering the country.” Purcell then said it was discriminatory and that the state’s allegations at this point of the legal procedures must be given weight.
• Judge Friedland asked government lawyer Flentje again “What if the order said ‘No Muslims’?” Flentje said that would likely be unconstitutional but “that’s not the order we have here.” Flentje then acknowledged that it had been reported during the campaign that Trump had proposed a Muslim ban and that some of his advisers had talked about how to enact such a restriction while staying within the Constitution. But then Flentje said it would be “extraordinary” to second-guess the president’s power over immigration and national security “based on some newspaper articles.”
• Judge Canby noted concern that the administration had changed its reading of the order to say that it did not apply to green-card holders, when initially officials had said that it did. There were questions about who interprets the order and who exactly does it restrict.
• Clearly there is some skepticism amongst the judges about Trump’s order. Judge Friedland said that the panel would make their rule as soon as possible. 

(Updates to come)

BREAKING NEWS: Halt on Trump travel ban remains in effect, appeals court rules – 2/9/2017