Court Judges Focus On Whether Trump Travel Order Targets Muslims

Omar Jadwat, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, also faced tough questions.

Outside, a couple hundred protesters marched around the courthouse shouting, "No hate, no fear, Muslims are welcome here!"

But soon he had to respond a question and elaborate on the reason why Trump's campaign website still contains the statement on Muslim ban.

In a clear indication that the judges recognize the urgency of this case as well as the legal and political significance, the court in the Fourth Circuit made a decision to forego the initial three-judge panel and skipped straight to the "en banc" or full-court panel of fifteen judges - 2 of whom recused themselves before the hearing.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has defended his proposed travel ban against citizens of several Muslim countries at an appeals court. The challengers in the Maryland case include six people, some of whom are U.S. citizens, who say the ban would prevent family members from entering the United States. "He said we have a problem with Muslims in the United States". The countries were chosen because they present terrorism risks and the ban applies to everyone in those countries regardless of religion, it says. "It has nothing to do with religion. Its operation has nothing to do with religion".

Trump release on "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering United States has been on campaign site since '15.

In court yesterday, acting solicitor general Jeffrey Wall, arguing for the government, insisted the travel restrictions did not amount to a "Muslim ban". A federal appeals court in Virginia will hear arguments in the case. After the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that order, Trump revised it.

"Don't we get to consider what was actually said here and said very explicitly?" asked Judge James A. Wynn Jr., who was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. Judge Niemeyer asked. "How about his speeches to businessmen 20 years ago?" Shortly after winning the presidential election in November, the same statement disappeared and the page redirected to Mr. Trump's campaign homepage, where visitors were prompted for donations.

A 2016 press release calling for a ban on Muslim immigration was scrubbed from the Trump campaign website Monday - just as the White House press secretary was quizzed on the existence of the page amid a court battle over the president's controversial travel ban. "It's still on his website", said Judge Robert B. King, one of the most pointed questioners on the court.

"The order is completely unprecedented in our nation's history", Jadwat said.

Pointing to the Republican's promises on the campaign trail to bar Muslims from entering the country, a federal judge in Maryland found in March that the policy appeared to be driven primarily by religious animus.

The White House press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that the USA administration's travel ban policy constitutes a ban based on nationality, not religion.

The government argued that the courts shouldn't second-guess the president's national security decisions. Some of the judges seemed to agree.

"Is the executive not entitled to some deference?" asked Judge Dennis W. Shedd.

The president's "power over immigration must be exercised in a way that's consistent with the Constitution", including its ban on religious discrimination, said Judge Pamela Harris.

They said Trump's comment, while signing his second order, that "you know what I mean" by the order was a "wink and a nod" to let supporters know he was really aiming at Muslims.

But Richard Primus, a professor of constitutional law at the University of MI law school, said he thinks the Supreme Court will ultimately hear the case no matter what the appeals courts decide. On Monday, the government defended the contested ban in a Virginia federal appeals court.