Trump's Least Favorite Court Grills Lawyers In Travel Ban Case
- Author: Larry Hoffman May 18, 2017,
May 18, 2017, 5:31
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the arguments in Seattle and will rule later on the government's appeal of a preliminary injunction by a federal judge in Hawaii that blocked the ban. But if Trump's executive order was anything like Korematsu, Wall said: "I wouldn't be standing here, and the USA would not be defending it".
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments over Trump's revised travel ban. "And its operation doesn't have anything to do with religion", he said.
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.
The revised travel ban that Trump signed on March 6 would block the entry of foreign nationals from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days, with exceptions for permanent USA residents and current visa holders, and suspend the admission of refugees for 120 days.
Wall was formerly a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and has argued before the nation's top court 11 times.
But Neal Katyal - the attorney for the State of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh, a Hawaii-based imam - said that "context matters", recounting Trump's most controversial statements.
March 7 - Hawaiʻi filed the first challenge against the second travel ban.
Wall added that there was no "affirmative showing of bad faith" by Trump.
Wall said the president has clarified his remarks.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer expressed confidence that President Trump's travel ban order will be upheld by an appeals court. Paez asked. "There was no reference to the Japanese in that executive order, but look what happened".
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said that Judge Paez's "invocation of Korematsu may suggest his concern about the possibility of executive branch overreach in this case". If they were, he insisted, "I would not be standing here to defend the order, neither would the United States [government]".
MICHAEL HAWKINS: Has the president ever disavowed his campaign statements?
Wall responded that Trump had.
Katyal, when it was his turn to speak, said Wall "could not actually point to any disavowal" because "there is no such statement".
"People say things on the campaign trail, then they take an oath to uphold the constitution, they form an administration and they consult with them on the policies they develop", General Wall said.
"This is a repeated pattern of the president", Katyal said. Katyal argued that the answer is a resounding yes.
"A few months later, 'I think Islam hates us".
Siding with Hawaii, he said, means maintaining the status quo that "existed for decades", including all presidential powers and "every decision every president has made in our lifetime".
"This is a very limited, very unusual case when you have the public statements by the president. You open the door to so much".
In 1952, with the nation fearful of communist infiltration, Congress gave the president the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to take action: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may. suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate", the law says.
Chin credited Washington state's case for paving the way and also noted the significance of the hearing taking place at the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle, named after a Medal of Honor recipient who was interned along with his family during World War II.
Arguments are underway in Seattle over whether to reinstate the travel ban. As evidence, he rattled off an extensive list of amicus briefs submitted in favor of striking down Trump's order.
The three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had tough questions for each side.