SEATTLE — The 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments by phone from both sides Tuesday afternoon in an appeal of a Seattle judge’s ruling that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
The three judge panel must decide whether or not the temporary restraining order granted by Seattle-based U. S. District Senior Judge James Robart should be lifted.
The hearing is scheduled for 3 p.m Pacific Time in San Francisco. Each side will be allowed to argue for 30 minutes over the phone. The arguments will be streamed live through the court’s public website.
“We’re going to take it through the system. It’s very important for the country regardless of me or whoever succeeds at a later date,” President Trump told NBC Tuesday morning.
When asked whether Mr. Trump believes the legal battle could end up going to the Supreme Court, the President replied: “We’ll see. Hopefully it doesn’t have to. ”
“It’s common sense,” President Trump continued. “You know some things are law, and I’m all in favor of that, and some things are common sense. ”
Since Friday’s ruling, a number of immigrants and refugees affected by President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order have resumed travel.
“This morning was the first chance I actually got to watch on TV scenes like this at airports all around the country. We’ve just been so damn busy at the office,” said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson meeting with a reunited family at Sea-Tac airport on Monday.
The Trump administration’s order in question suspended the U. S. refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely suspended Syrian refugees, and put a 90-day pause on immigration from seven predominately Muslim counties.
“We need to make decisions based on facts, not alternative facts, and the fact is the people from the countries that Mr. Rabi came from have not been responsible for one since terrorist attack since 9/11,” said Governor Jay Inslee, referencing one of the Washington residents affected by the order last week.
By late Monday afternoon, both sides had filed briefs with the federal appeals court that could rule as early as the end of the week.
Attorneys for the Trump administration argue that Robart’s “sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly over broad. ”
The Department of Justice’s central argument revolves around the broad discretion granted to the President by Congress, in matters of immigration and the refugee program.
In a meeting on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee that he should have talked to members of Congress ahead of rolling out the executive order.
“I should have delayed it just a bit,” said Kelly.
However, Sec. Kelly defended the order, calling current “vetting, at best loose. ”
“I believe the vetting on the other end right now is not adequate to protect the nation. ”
A group of ten former national security and foreign policy officials disagree, calling the order “unnecessary,” as well as “ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill explained. ”
“We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer,” read a declaration filed as part of Washington state’s response to the DOJ appeal.
The mostly Democratic former officials, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, along with former Director of National Security Agency Michael Hayden, and former CIA Director Leon Panetta signed on in support of the state’s suit.
“The Order is unprecedented in scope. We know of no case where a President has invoked his statutory authority to suspend admission for such a broad class of people,” their document noted.
While most of the signatories served under Democratic administrations, the group includes officials who advised both the Barack Obama and George W. Bush administrations.
“A number of (us) have worked at senior levels in administrations of both political parties,” the declaration said. “Four of us were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U. S. as recently as one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27. 2017 Executive Order.”
The full list of signatories includes Madeleine Albright, Avril Haines, Michael Hayden, John Kerry, John McLaughlin, Lisa Monaco, Michael Morell, Janet Napolitano, Leon Panetta, and Susan Rice.
Their declaration also keys into a question raised by U. S. District Senior Judge James Robart on Friday, who inquired about the rationale of targeting the seven countries affected by the executive order.
“Have there been terrorist attacks in the United States by refugees or immigrants from the seven countries listed since 9/11?” Judge Robart asked the DOJ attorney arguing on behalf of the Trump administration.
“You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect U. S. from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that,” Robart continued.
The DOJ, meanwhile, points to the seven countries being designated as areas of concern by Congress and the previous administration.
“Because it’s a question of foreign affairs; Congress has delegated authority to the President to make these determinations,” argued DOJ attorney Michelle Bennett. “The court does not have the authority to look behind the determinations.”
President Trump, weighing in on Twitter wrote, “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U. S.”
“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and the court system,” another tweet read in part.
