Thousands of travelers await the court’s final decision regarding the travel ban, which seeks to prohibit the entrance of immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries into the US.
Three US federal court judges weighed on Tuesday the fate of the controversial immigration ban US President Donald Trump has pushed to reinstate in recent weeks.
The panel of three appellate judges from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reportedly grilled a Justice Department lawyer regarding the information and evidence Trump had used in forming his decision on the ban. They also questioned him about the extent of power the president should have in this particular case as well as others.

Similarity rank: 8.7

Sentiment rank: -1.5

© Source: http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/US-federal-court-reassess-Trumps-controversial-travel-ban-480913
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

A baby girl from Iran who had been blocked from entering the U. S. has been cleared to fly to Oregon for a desperately needed heart surgery. Danie…
The family previously had an appointment in Dubai to get a tourist visa. But it was abruptly canceled after Trump announced his executive order banning the entry of people from seven countries with Muslim majorities. The girl and her parents had to return to Iran.
A Seattle judge issued a temporary restraining order on the ban the same day a waiver was granted for the baby.
“Fatemeh looks well,” said Dr. Laurie Armsby, interim head of the Division of Pediatric Cardiology at OHSU Doernbecher Children’s Hospital. “Our tests this morning have confirmed her diagnosis and the urgent need for treatment.”
U. S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, was instrumental in getting the waiver for the baby’s family, as were New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and immigration attorneys.
The hospital issued a statement saying that the family “would like to extend their heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped make their trip possible. The family would like to give special thanks to the congressional delegations and governors of Oregon and New York.”
Jennifer Morrissey, a Portland immigration attorney who championed the baby’s cause, said “This was truly a team effort to beat the clock, given the medical and legal hurdles Fatemeh was facing.”
The family of the 4-month-old chose Portland because of its proximity to relatives and because of OHSU’s expertise in treatment of the heart condition.
Armsby said the infant’s heart condition had “resulted in injury to her lungs” but there is time “to reverse this process.”
The hospital said treatment would begin with a cardiac catheterization, performed by Armsby, followed by a five- to six-hour surgical procedure performed by Dr. Irving Shen, a nationally respected expert on Fatemeh’s condition.

Similarity rank: 8.5

Sentiment rank: -2.1

© Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fatemeh-reshad-iranian-infant-arrives-in-portland-for-life-saving-surgery/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

President Donald Trump’s travel ban faced its toughest test yet Tuesday as a panel of appeals court judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears while also directing pointed questions to the opposing attorney, who challenged the executive order on grounds that it unconstitutionally targeted Muslims.
The contentious hearing before three judges on the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals focused narrowly on whether a restraining order issued by a lower court should remain in effect while a challenge to the ban proceeds. But the judges also jumped into the larger constitutional questions surrounding Trump’s order, which temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program and immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries that have raised terrorism concerns.
Listen to lawyers for the department of justice argue on behalf of President Trump’s travel ban in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The hearing was conducted by phone – an unusual step – and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and various social media outlets. It attracted a huge audience, with more than 130,000 alone tuned in to the court’s YouTube site to hear audio.
Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota what evidence he had that the ban was motivated by religion. The two states are suing to invalidate the ban.
Listen as Washington State Solicitor General Noah Purcell argues against President Trump’s travel ban order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals…
“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected.”
Only 15 percent of the world’s Muslims are affected, the judge said, citing his own calculations. He added that the “concern for terrorism from those connected to radical Islamic sects is hard to deny.”
Noah Purcell, Washington state’s solicitor general, cited public statements by Trump calling for a ban on the entry of Muslims to the U. S. He said the states did not have to show every Muslim is harmed, only that the ban was motivated by religious discrimination.
Clifton also went after the government’s attorney, asking whether he denied statements by President Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who said recently that Mr. Trump asked him to create a plan for a Muslim ban. Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Obama, asked why the case should not move forward to determine what motivated the ban.
“We’re not saying the case shouldn’t proceed, but we are saying that it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president’s national security decision based on some newspaper articles,” said August Flentje, who argued the case for the Justice Department.
Under questioning from Clifton, Flentje did not dispute that Mr. Trump and Giuliani made the statements.
Clifton said he understood if the government argued that statements by Trump and his advisers should not be given much weight, but he said they are potentially evidence in the case.
Friedland also asked whether the government has any evidence connecting the seven nations to terrorism.
Flentje told the judges that the case was moving fast and the government had not yet included evidence to support the ban. Flentje cited a number of Somalis in the U. S. who, he said, had been connected to the al-Shabab terrorist group.
The ban has upended travel to the U. S. for more than a week and tested the new administration’s use of executive power.
Whatever the court eventually decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
The government asked the appeals court to restore President Trump’s order, arguing that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States. Several states insist that it is unconstitutional.
As stated in the government’s brief to the court, Flentje offered the 9th Circuit a third option, saying the court could exempt from the ban people who have previously been admitted to the U. S., but keep it in place for people who have never been to the country.
The judges repeatedly questioned Flentje on why the states should not be able to sue on behalf of their residents or on behalf of their universities, which have complained about students and faculty getting stranded overseas.
Purcell said that restraining order has not harmed the U. S. government. Instead, he told the panel, Trump’s order had harmed Washington state residents by splitting up families, holding up students trying to travel for their studies and preventing people from visiting family abroad.
A decision by the 9th Circuit was likely to come later this week, Madden said.
Mr. Trump said Tuesday that he cannot believe his administration has to fight in the courts to uphold his ban, a policy he says will protect the country.
“And a lot of people agree with us, believe me,” Trump said at a round table discussion with members of the National Sheriff’s Association. “If those people ever protested, you’d see a real protest. But they want to see our borders secure and our country secure.”
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told lawmakers that the order probably should have been delayed at least long enough to brief Congress about it.
If the case does end up before the Supreme Court, it could prove difficult to find the necessary five votes to undo a lower court order. The Supreme Court has been at less than full strength since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death a year ago. The last immigration case that reached the justices ended in a 4-4 tie.
How and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before a higher court takes up the issue. Or the administration could change it in any number of ways that would keep the issue alive.

Similarity rank: 11

Sentiment rank: 0.4

© Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9th-circuit-judges-hammer-both-sides-in-travel-ban-case/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced by Senate Republicans on Tuesday after reading a letter written by the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.
The 30-year-old letter criticised Jeff Sessions, President Donald Trump’s nomination for attorney general.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, said Ms Warren had broken senate rules by impugning the conduct of another senator.
She subsequently read Coretta Scott King’s letter live on Facebook.
The incident occurred during a debate in the senate on the nomination of Mr Sessions. Mr McConnell’s objection to Ms Warren’s speech was put to a vote and senators voted 49-43 in his favour.
Ms Warren described what happened in a comment alongside her Facebook video: „During the debate on whether to make Jeff Sessions the next Attorney General, I tried to read a letter from Coretta Scott King on the floor of the Senate.
„The letter, from 30 years ago, urged the Senate to reject the nomination of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. The Republicans took away my right to read this letter on the floor – so I’m right outside, reading it now. “
Jeff Sessions dogged by racism claims
Jeff Sessions: ‚Southern racist caricature painful‘
Ms Scott King’s letter alleged that Mr Sessions was unsuitable for that role because he had „used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters“. Mr Sessions‘ nomination process has been dogged by allegations that he attempted to suppress black votes when he was an attorney in Alabama.
The objection by Mr McConnell raised the ire of Democrats and members of the public, many of whom shared the letter on social media using the hashtag #LetLizSpeak.
Bernice King, the daughter of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, wrote on Twitter : „Thank you @SenWarren for being the soul of the Senate during the #Sessions hearing. #LetCorettaSpeak #LetLizSpeak“
The Democratic National Committee said in a statement it was a „sad day in America when the words of Martin Luther King Jr’s widow are not allowed on the floor of the United States Senate“.
Ms Warren is now barred from speaking on the floor for the remainder of the debate, Mr McConnell’s office said. The debate is expected to conclude on Wednesday.

Similarity rank: 15

Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38903338
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.