If motion stay we ask that you deny it. Thank you. Thank you ill give you five minutes for rebuttal. I want to address a couple of quick points. Whatever den says about looking at counselor decisionmaking does not suggest we look behind National Security determines made by the president that determination four corners of determination are based on the congressional determination that the country at issue is of different. I thought you were using den and mandel as your now youre saying its distinguishable, are you relying on those cases or not . We are relying on them for the limits that the Court Reviews this issue. Im adding when you have a document itself and thats best evidence of intent of the president relies excluively on the cause made by congress by the safety concerns presented by the countries at issue that is the end of the inquiry and should be. The fact i know counsel for the other side cited this Court Car Danous Decision and they in dedescribing the state of the Law Court Say Congress should can enacted Blanket Prohibition On it was describing mandel. We have the president making ha
substanive interpretations. One the guidance from the White House Council is defen Tifr Interpretation of the order. And the white house speaks for the president in this context. On the page of 11 we had suggestion for the kind of order that would address the harms idea by washington. And im going to read it. At most injunction should be limited to the class of individuals on whom the states claims rest. Previously admitted aliens temporary abroad now or wish to travel and rirn return to the United States in the future. Thats the core of the harm. When were talking about an injunction entered on prelim
nation basis should be if there are no further questions stay injurngs or limited to to the state of washington. Thank you. Thank you counsel for your helpful arguments. This matter is submitted. We appreciate the importance and the time sensitive nature of this matter when endefer to issue as soon as possible. That you for appearing on short notice. We are adjourned. In washington we are following the question of whether or not an american president is limited bylaw. A law for the states of washington and minnesota have been squaring off over whether or not to reinstate president
trump ban on travel for seven countries. The hearing which was conducted over the phone wrapped up. On friday a seattle judge temporary blocked order. The ninth circuit to appeal it immediately. Attorneys argue the travel ban is unconstitutional because it discrimination on basis of challenge special counsel to the u. S. Assistant attorney general. On that point. Lets listen. Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism . These proceeding have been moving fast and the strongest
point on that is that in 2015 and 2016 both congress and the Administration Made determination that these seven countries possessed greatest risk of terrorism. There would be real risk if existing procedures not aallowed to stay in play or conducts its review. The president determined there was a real risk. Im joined by ari melber. When youre watching this, the judges were tough on both witness, for both the government and the state of washington. I thought. Judges are going to cut right through it. There was much respond to the question. On the lawyering, i thought dog came up short. You can tell thats from folks listening live by the long pauses, you can tell when they changed subject. Pressed on standing on whether or not Washington State can bring the state they would reach out for other arguments that was tough going. The debate you know about from the little side on the seven countries. Why these sureven. The seattle hearing where judge robart says are there thaet from these country, arose again today. There were many areas where i thought the dog struggled. A lot of discussion on religion and whether this is religion ban or not. Thats controversy. Ended his campaign talking about something different. But at the heart of this case, which is the heart of the appeal here the ninth circuit could reinstate the ban or they could leave the temporary block in place while trial continues. Is this discriminations by another means. Theres tremendous power over immigration. What the executive doesnt get to do is hind behind the powers while trying to discriminate against First Amendment whether this muslim ban or not is important. You heard argument where the judge said, most muslims are not
harmed by this. And at times i thought the washington lawyer struggled and said im not sure. Theres constitution for discrimination on wide basis or not. We have seen Rudy Giuliani comments come up twice in this hearing and a republican pointed judge, judge cliff ton say, do you deny that rudy grew out of muslim ban. We dont deny that. Thats kind of evidence thats going to hurt this administration if judges think it shows religious an nious. Su di arabia, can you argue its antimus lim in the large sense it tarring getting but it is not against muslim but theres not stopping from them coming here from all the places where they live. Statutorily it doesnt do that its impact you have a lot of other place that are not effected. Thats defense. The reason why rudys comments are pivotal because thats what we tried to do it is certainly legally problematic for the administration that all the of the countries they pick do not have a historical link to sending killers here. We know who came here. We know what countries they came from. They murdered thousands of
people. We know about that. When you setup new Immigration Rules and and you dont you have a question. Is there a rash that will link. I would tell you they would be on stronger footing if they targeted pa targeted pakistan or other countries. If youre a president you do get to decide where the threat it. If he thinks its coming from those countries based on President Obama put in place in those other countries Travel Restrictions theres a lot of confusion about. A british person who stops under libya is under suspicion. They stop over in one of those countries, why are they doing that. Whats going on there. The restrictions are not about the threat in those countries. Theres been confusion about that. Does the courts in the entd do they want to get between president and his authority to decide where the threat is. Because historically president have the power to say japan, iraq, if they pick it, they can limit it. Thats been part of the president s article 2 powers. Its tricky for a judge to see whos coming if from President Trump willing to take fight to Supreme Court if necessary. Mr. President how far are you willing to take the Travel Ban Fight . To the system. Regardless of me or whoever succeeds at later date we have
to have security in our country. Its common sense. Some things are law and im in favor of that, this is common sense. This is common sense. Im joined by panel of advisers. What do you think should decide this case. Is it constitutional ban, what is the key factor that you would look to in deciding a case like this at appellate or district left . I think the question is whether the status quo is deeffective and whether we need this muslim ban if it was a Terrorist Ban why dont they go against countries that sent terrorists. Instead they went against country why not a single person
caved a fatal terrorist attack. At District Court the judge said i want to make a ruling based on fact or fiction and i would do it based on faction. There was two issues one can president use authority sweeping sport n authority not connected to the appeal court that heard the case was skeptical about the notion you could not review it. They were skeptical that washington could not come in plead the rights of its citizens. If you call something a muslim ban and call you something different, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig. How can you argue that is ba
law is not our enemy. Im not arguing that. You said country dont pose a threat in realtime right now his ba law is o problem from iran. What kind of system we need and the system we have was extreme vetting. So President Trump said i want extreme weighting thats what we already had. Its an individualized this not determination people based on background its based on content of individual character. We have a system where if it you pose a threat you have to individually extremely vetted. They proved there was no new threat. So the National Security officialsed involved in declaration, you saw brief
include two secretaries of state, four people on the stream one week before, they said theres no new threat and theres no new reason to think its not working. How do you know as a legal scholar why our threat comes from . Its been financed by iran, the shy ad are behind it. This is complicate, if youre a judge and youre wrong about it, and we do suffer, what do they say its not my fault . What the judge said prove theres a threat subsequent to this ruling . They said to him president are responsible for the future not the past. Theres a new threat. Im asking in terms of
consequence. . They have to rely on fact and whether response to the fact are consistent to the law. He had no fact and i except if it was imper kal we would have beaten by now. One week before, all of these officials signed this declaration we are current with the Threat Stream and we did not think it would be addressed by this. It would be addressed individual system individualized vetting. They say lets three Throw Away Machine and put in the broad ban and the ban turn out to be not based on fact. You dont get deference for being president when you dont make reasonable and causing
chaos in the process. Its here is an exchanges between washington and judge cliff ton on lets listen. To prove religious. We have alleged that. How do infer that if in fact muslim are not effected. Thr statements we quoted in our complaint that are shocking discovery to find out what else might have been stayed in private. The statements from president
and his top advisers to allow us to go forward on that claim. Mr. Riff can, how do you respond to that . Let me point the post co gent notion that federal judges are equipped to secondguess performed on basis of Objective Allegation had the same intelligence. Were talking about discretionary judgment. What are limits of the president s power in this case, what the limit . If it was out right ban could he get away with it . It is not a muslim ban. If it were in principal it would be establishment clause, First Amendment issue. I have a problem that states
can vin Kat Preexercise we have two political branchs that delegation of the president s authority to exclude certain classes of aliens plus constitutional authority, so both political branchs came together. And we have both executive and determination these are countries of concern. Where my colleague how you slice this, how you treat the concern, what are the measures, he says extreme vetting, thats not by the way, breed terrorism, they high quality vetting in the judgment of this administration is impossible. Visas who are granted to individual who are is heavily vetted. The system we have was individualized vetting ask theres prove that it wasnt working. In fact, these countries all the people who would have committed Terrorists Attack were vetted out. If you dont like that system, why dont you make the Vetting System stronger instead of shifting to a system which bans people based on stereotype based on religion and national origin. I agree with you and i think that the secretary carriry and President Obama way have been Secretary Clin toton would agre with you. Youre not going to get employee me to fight with you on that. If it gets to the question on who smart and who is not, i put my youre state the buck stops with the president , if president is obeying the law and if it the president has facts to support what he is doing in instead of relying on discrimination. Its president or she is responsible for protection of the country. Michael due caucus was a good servant. In the end, the public said they should not have let the guy
o out. Where does the power come from. From constitution. Who is last. I agree with you. Exactly. We are talking about the constitution does not provide for judicial analysis of every single issue. Body of law political question doctrine. It is utter exaggeration separation of power to say the court has a standing in everything. It is you said it, you said your side will win argument in this court. Yes. Professor you believe your side will win. We look at who is going to win. The majority of the court that have ruled, the vast majority on this have ruled against the president. Remember this, donald trump is private citizen, he became citizen, if he violates the law and the court says youre violating the law, you captant it. Please coming back. Thank you, i agree with you completely. David rift con, thank you. The states have sued to block the president s travel ban. We have heard during the campaign, they are using it as evidence in court. In critiques say trump is using
on saturday President Trump tweeted, the opinion of this socalled judge is ridiculous and will be overturned. What is our country coming to when a judge Hall Homeland Ban pouring into our country. A terrible decision. Through the judiciary decide with the executive in this cases, some say words can come back to harm him. No one apparently give him anything like a Miranda Warning anything he says and will be used against him in the court of law. Amy is a democrat from minnesota and an attorney and joins us now. Thank you. Consequence of legal decision if the court rules the president is beyond his bounds, where does
that lead us . Who does set the policy on illegal dangerous immigrants coming into in country. The court or president , doesnt it go back to him . The president is responsible for National Security. There are through Equal Branchs of government. And Congress Gets involved as well. If this were to happen the Administration Needs to look at what are the bio metrics involved. We have upgraded vetting for the refugees, if from everywhere in the world. We have fouryearold toddler that we were table to get through since the order. If they happens he has to work with people figure out what he want to add with vetting if he has threats of people from these
country and he wants to change some things good. What happened here is this was so rashly directed draft that the next day they came in and said this doesnt include green card people, that became one of the argument here. You cant change what the order meant originally and it shows how many difficulties there r with this order under the law. Lets talk about to option, if the ninth circuit, this administration is unlikely to have found itself in that court, they are in there they going to rule own this appeal. If they go with the government on this, and they end the ban, what will you think of that . Would you think that is mistake or something that has to be remedied in some other way . How would you react to it as a lawmaker, if it goes the other way . Two things, i would like to get the administration to simply admit this has not worked. The vetting rule wasnt vetted. There are children, people caught in transit, and they need to fix it. Secondly, the congress we do have a bill and right now it is democratic bill to repeal the ban and congress should get involved. We have duty to get involved and to work with the people in our state, those are two twways to change this. We are going to see individual rights asserted because this is constitutional issue as well security issue. Number one focus of government is peoples safety. A number of National Securityexpert says this doesnt make us safety because of the way it was done. How do we predict the next professor ko talk about, we know somalia is a dangerous country, we know the groups are international, they are mobile. Cy ran killed Boeby Kennedy He came from palestine. My question is how do you know . How do you know which country is going to hit us next . You use every tool you can. Isnt it the president if this were President Obama wouldnt you trust him to decide where threats are coming from . He focused on those countries specifically. Congress have worked on this to change the Vetting Process acknowledging theres a lot of people that dont to do us harm. That doesnt mean we should throw out entire refugee program. I dont believe this was the right way it go. In stay instead of working with the president to see what change hef he wanted to do. They are looking at trying to change it, were going to use this inception for that, i think they are better off starting from scratch, working with Law Enforcement and that would be smartest thing to do. Meanwhile, well wait to see what the court says. Thats better way. Legislation with the president banning out with him. Thank you. I can see you love the law. Scalia on one thing, i like law. Not interpretation. Theres no way to cover three Court Judge Hearing you done with it class. Thank you. Intentionally down playing terrorists threat. Here what he told Macdill Airport in tampa. The