The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to continue blocking enforcement of President Trump ’s travel ban. The unanimous decision means that a stay preventing a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries remains in place, at least for now. The ruling came after the three-judge panel heard arguments this week from the Justice Department and Washington state.

Earlier this week:

  • President Trump's words on Muslims come back to bite him.
  • Judges ask about limiting parts of the travel ban, rather than blocking it entirely.
  • Meet the three judges deciding whether to reinstate Trump's travel ban.
  • Read Trump's executive order and legal filings for and against the executive order.

Trump's words come back to bite him in court hearing

As a federal appeals court heard arguments over the validity of President Trump's executive order temporarily banning travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, some of the strongest evidence for his opponents came from the president's own words.

A key argument in the case is whether Trump's executive order violated the Constitution's ban on religious discrimination. Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota have alleged that the order was designed to discriminate against Muslims.

Asked for evidence to support that claim, the lawyer for Washington pointed to "the public statements from the president and his top advisors," which he described as "rather shocking."

Trump called for a "Muslim ban" during his presidential campaign, Noah G. Purcell said. And the day he signed the order, he gave an interview to a Christian television network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christian refugees.

The evidence indicates that the order was "intended to favor some religious groups over others," Purcell said, which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment's ban on an established religion.

Purcell encountered some skepticism from one member of the panel, Judge Richard R. Clifton, who noted that the seven countries covered by the order make up only a small part of the world's Muslim population. That would suggest that the order wasn't aimed at Muslims, in general, but at residents of countries that have a serious problem with terrorism, Clifton said.

"We do not need to prove" that the order "harms every Muslim," Purcell responded, just that it was intended to discriminate based on religion.

Trump's comments were also the reason that led former acting U.S. Atty. Gen. Sally Yates to say that the Justice Department would not defend the executive order. Trump fired Yates for taking that position.

Latest updates

Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times