Judges raise thorny questions about revised Trump travel ban

  • Judges raise thorny questions about revised Trump travel ban

Judges raise thorny questions about revised Trump travel ban

In reviewing the decision of a federal district judge in Maryland, who blocked the ban from going into effect, the judges of the 4 Circuit focused nearly exclusively on the question of whether Trump's campaign pledge to ban Muslims should be taken into consideration when weighing the constitutionality of the travel ban.

It is highly unlikely that the judges would issue a ruling on Monday, but a decision could come in the next few weeks.

"Is there anything other than willful blindness that would prevent us from getting behind those statements?" asked Judge Henry Floyd.

Although it does not explicitly mention Muslims, US District Judge Theodore Chuang of Maryland accepted arguments that Trump's history of anti-Muslim rhetoric presented "a convincing case" that the second executive decree amounted to "the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban".

"I think we're well on pace with where previous administrations have been - some ahead, some a little behind - but we're doing a great job of filling those key positions and making sure that we get the right person for the right job", the press secretary said when questioned about the pace at which the administration is making appointments. 'The courts have spoken, time and time again: the reviseexecutive order is just as discriminatory and harmful as the first, Heller said.

The lawyers defending the travel ban were also asked about Trump's campaign statements. The judges asked whether the revised ban violates the establishment clause and whether the courts had any business delving into issues best handled by the executive and legislative branches of government.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the travel ban case Monday afternoon shortly after the language was removed. Numerous judges on Monday suggested they could not ignore the president's previous statements.

Trump's campaign vow to implement a Muslim ban is at the core of both lawsuits. This after the Trump administration argued its travel ban toward seven Muslim-majority nations was not based on religion.

It is possible the court could toss out all or part of the case because only one plaintiff appears to have standing. It's rather the motivations and intentions of the supposed lawbreaker - well, more to truth, the perceived motivations and intentions, because as we all know, there are no mind readers in the human race.

Yet overall, the court, appeared more favorable to the arguments by the ACLU and the International Refugee Assistance Project that the ban does not serve a legitimate national security goal.

"He's never repudiated what he said about Muslims", King said.

At a congressional hearing for the Senate judiciary subcommittee, which is investigating Russian interference in U.S. 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. Judge Barbara Keenan, who like Harris was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, said the order could affect some 200 million people. Refugee advocates, including HIAS, a resettlement agency, said the executive order “would cause irreparable damage.”. We have a candidate who won the presidency - some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency - and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took.

"What if he says I'm sorry every day for a year?"

We have an order on its face.

Since the statement's 2015 release, Trump has released multiple drafts of an immigration travel ban that targets immigrants from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, according to CNN.

Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined the court last month.