9th Circuit, 3-judge panel appears ready to rule against Trump on ban as DOJ lawyer struggled

dcnf-2-1Kevin Daley, DCNF

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared skeptical that it should grant the governmentā€™s motion to overturn U.S. District Judge James Robartā€™s ruling temporarily barring enforcement of President Donald Trumpā€™s executive order on refugees.

protestors

Robartā€™s Jan. 27 order suspended enforcement of provisions of the order which preclude refugee admissions and block travel to the U.S. from seven countries with high instances of terrorism.

The argument was live-streamed by the 9th Circuit, drawing an unprecedented internet audience of nearly 150,000 listeners. The proceedings were also broadcast on CNN and MSNBC, making the hearing a historic event in the history of federal appellate courts. The hearing was held by phone given the time constraints attending such hurried proceedings. A recording of the argument is available at this link.

Judge Michelle Friedland presided over the hearing, with JudgesĀ Richard Clifton andĀ William Canby. Friedland is an Obama-era appointee, Clifton is a George W. Bush appointee, and Canby is a Carter appointee.

At this stage of the litigation, the court is not reviewing the order on the merits. Rather, they are deciding whether Robartā€™s temporary restraining order (TRO) will remain in effect as the courts assess the lawfulness of Trumpā€™s directive.

The government was represented by August Flentje, a career lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice. The question of risked loomed large over the administrationā€™s argument. In order to prevail in the hearing, the government was required to show it would suffer serious harm if Robartā€™s order was not overturned. Flentje argued that, absent the order, the U.S. was at risk of terrorist attack. Friedland and Clifton appeared skeptical of that position, asserting the risk was too abstract.

Flentje went on to argue that the courts ought to defer to the presidentā€™s national security determinations, leading Friedland to ask if the courts could scrutinize such findings.

ā€œAre you arguing than thatĀ the presidentā€™s decision on that regard is unreviewable?ā€ Friedland asked.

ā€œYes,ā€ Flentje replied. ā€œThere are obviously constitutional limitations but we are discussing the risk assessment,ā€ he quickly added. The panel seemed especially dubious on this point.

ā€œIā€™m not sure I am convincing the court,ā€ he said at one point, in a remarkable concession.

Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell, leading a group of states challenging the order, endured equally rigorous questioning.

Clifton suggested that the Trump administration was justified in suspending travel from the seven countries named in the order, given previous federal designations had limited migration from those same areas. He also seemed skeptical of the contention that the order discriminates against those who practice Islam.

ā€œI have trouble with why weā€™re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,ā€ he said, pointing out that, by his rough calculations, only 15 percent of the worldā€™s Muslims were subject to the order.

Purcell struggled against this argument. Nonetheless, by the hearingā€™s conclusion, it seemed evident the government would lose, setting up a high stakes appeal to the Supreme Court.

During Tuesdayā€™s press briefing at the White House, press secretary Sean Spicer expressed confidence that the government would prevail, though declined to say whether the Department of Justice would appeal to the high court.

A ruling is not expected until later this week.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the āˆØ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

BPR INSIDER COMMENTS

Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles