A Seattle appellate courtroom will on Monday morning review President Trump’s revised executive order temporarily halt immigration from refugees and nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries.

A Hawaii federal judge in March admonished the order from taking effect in March based on the “religious animus” of Trump and his advocates made about the policy.

 Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall wrote to the court defending the order, contending that the president’s executive authority in protecting the country and enforcing immigration laws in this matter is beyond judicial review. He also insisted that the policy is not a “Muslim ban,” but rather Mr. Trump’s good faith effort to protect rights while securing the homeland from foreign terrorists. And that the president’s

The three- judge panel who will hear the appeal of Hawaii’s challenge to the president’s travel “ban” were appointed by former president Bill Clinton.

Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez, who sit on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,  will decide whether the ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law.

The order would temporarily suspend refugees from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the country. It also freezes refugee admissions so intelligence and security officials can review existing admission procedures.

The White House maintains that the travel halt is a temporary move involving national security and some Ninth Circuit judges have said the president’s order is on sound legal ground. However, groups in opposition and the judges impaneled on the case have called the order blatant religious discrimination.

““The president seeks to enact a thinly veiled Muslim ban, shorn of procedural protections and premised on the belief that those who practice Islam are a danger to our country,” says plaintiffs’ lawyer Neal Katyal who represents the state of Hawaii and an Imam who lives in the islands. “The government’s only real response is to ask the court to close its eyes to abundant evidence of discrimination.”

Government lawyers representing both sides will get 30 minutes to present their arguments. A live camera feed will also originate from inside the courtroom.

The travel ban cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.

After Trump issued his initial travel ban in late January, bringing chaos and protests to airports around the country, a Seattle judge blocked its enforcement nationwide — a decision that was unanimously upheld by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel.

Last month in an interview with The Washington Examiner, President Trump blasted the 9th Circuit for blocking his executive orders and accused his opponents are “judge shopping” in the court that covers the western United States and said he has “absolutely” considered proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that’s like, semi-automatic,” Trump said.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here