It’s the waiting game for a decision after last night’s unprecedented hearing on the White House’s ban on immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries. While the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deliberates, families are coming to America. NJTV News Correspondent Brenda Flanagan covers the story.
A refugee family of eight from Syria finally made it here to the U.S. — after getting trapped overseas by the Trump administration’s travel ban last weekend. They flew in yesterday — while the ban’s on hold — and will be living in a Union City apartment prepared by church groups. It’s cases like theirs that form the human face of a court battle — over whether that temporary travel ban remains on hold or gets reinstated.
A three-judge federal panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments for an hour last night. The administration’s lawyer August Flentje said the president has broad legal powers to protect the country from aliens and refugees and that irreparable harm would occur without that travel ban. He said the states don’t have the right to block the ban, which targets seven mostly Muslim countries. The president was listening.
President Trump: A bad high school student would understand this. … And then you have lawyers and you — and I watched last night in amazement and I heard things that I couldn’t believe. Things that really had nothing to do with what I just read. And I don’t ever want to call a court biased — so I won’t call it biased — and we haven’t had a decision, yet, but courts seem to be so political. And it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.
Earlier, the president also criticized the Washington state judge who stayed the travel ban Sunday — described him as a “so-called judge.” The point here is that Donald Trump’s own comments could factor into the court’s ultimate decision. Washington State Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued last night that they could prove the travel ban was motivated by the president’s desire to discriminate against Muslims. He mentioned Trump’s call in 2015 for a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the U.S.
Noah Purcell: Well, your honor, in part you can infer it from intent evidence. There are statements that we’ve quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims given we haven’t even had any discovery yet to find out what else might have been said in private. I mean, the public statements from the president and his top advisors — reflecting that intent are strong evidence, certainly at this pleading stage, to allow us to go forward on that claim.
That prompted a heated response from the administration’s lawyer.
August Flentje: But it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president’s national security determination based on some newspaper articles. And that’s what has happened here. That is not a … that is very troubling — second-guessing of the national security decision made by the president. And the notion that —
Judge Richard Clifton: Stop, stop this is Judge Clifton. Do you deny that in fact the statements attributed to then candidate Trump and to his political advisors, and most recently Mr. Giuliani, do you deny those statements were made?
August Flentje: Judge Clifton, no.
Purcell argued the ban tore families apart, barred foreign students from returning to school and kept workers from their employers. Both sides want a quick decision and the appellate panel could issue a ruling as early as today. Undoubtedly that decision will get appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And this argument isn’t even on the merits of the ban — just on whether it should remain suspended pending the court battle over its merits.