Donald Trump's controversial travel ban has faced a fierce examination by the judges who will decide if it should be reinstated.
The hearing in San Francisco is the greatest legal challenge yet to the move to temporarily suspend the nation's refugee programme and immigration from seven mostly-Muslim countries.
A panel of three appeal court justices heard arguments from the Trump administration's Department of Justice and opponents of his Executive Order. They are expected to rule later in the week.
It followed a White House appeal against a restraining order imposed by a judge last week which has forced the government to temporarily lift the travel ban. It had caused chaos at airports in the US around the world when it was imposed.
Lawyers for both sides addressed the court by telephone during the hour-long session at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The administration asked the court to restore Mr Trump's order as, they say, he alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States.
Trump: Americans support travel ban
But Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether the government had any evidence connecting the seven affected nations to terrorism.
August Flentje, counsel for the US government, cited a number of Somalis in the US who he claimed had links to the terrorist group al Shabaab.
Judge Richard Clifton asked the lawyer for Washington state and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, what evidence he had that it was motivated by religion when "the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected".
Noah Purcell responded that Trump's public statements on the campaign trail, calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US, showed discrimination.
The states opposing the ban argue that it is unconstitutional and have been supported by a string of former government officials and dozens of major tech firms. They say the ban has impacted business and divided families.
Whatever the court decides, the case is likely to end up at the US Supreme Court. The ban itself was originally intended to last for just 90 days.
Earlier, Mr Trump said he was willing to go all the way to the highest court in the land.
"It could. We'll see. Hopefully it doesn't have to. It's common sense. You know, some things are law and I'm in favour of that and some things are common sense. This is common sense."
His new head of Homeland Security had also taken responsibility for the troubled roll-out of the ban.
In a hearing on Capitol Hill, John Kelly said: "In retrospect, I should have - this is all on me, by the way - I should have delayed it (roll-out of travel ban), so that I could talk to members of Congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this to prepare them for what was coming."
No comments:
Post a Comment