Trump's Immigration Ban Faces Contentious Court hearing (Common Sense)

US President Donald Trump describes his travel ban as "common sense" as a US appeals court is set to hold a hearing on the constitutionality of the executive order. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has started a hearing to decide whether President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries should remain on hold. A three-judge panel – two appointed by Democratic presidents, one by a Republican – is giving both sides about 30 minutes to make their case. August Flentje, a U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice’s civil division, is arguing on behalf of the Trump administration. Noah Purcell, solicitor general of Washington state, is arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs - Washington and Minnesota. A spokesman for the court said a ruling is expected later this week. Flentje argued that a president has broad, congressionally-granted powers to decide who can enter the country and bar immigrants if they're deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States." He said the seven countries selected for the travel ban had already been identified by the Obama administration as being the most terror-prone countries, giving Trump every right to temporarily ban immigration from those countries. "I understand the concept of that, but it’s pretty abstract," Judge Richard Clifton said. "It’s not like there haven’t been processes in place for dealing with people from those countries." The judges zeroed in on that point, repeatedly asking for instances where people from the seven countries covered by the ban had entered the U.S. and committed an act of terrorism. "Has the government provided any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?" Judge Michelle Friedland said. Flentje responded at first by saying that the case was moving very quickly, then said there have been cases that have not yet been submitted in evidence. Whatever happens during Tuesday’s hearing, Trump’s order continues to face an uphill battle. To reverse District Judge James Robart's ruling last week, the circuit court must show that it was decided in error, a difficult standard to meet — or at least that it was, as the government argues, "vastly overbroad." The panel of judges hearing the case Tuesday includes jurists named to the bench by then-presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. The court is considered the most liberal in the country, with 18 judges nominated by Democratic presidents and only seven appointed by Republicans. And if that panel keeps Trump's order on hold, the last stop could be the Supreme Court. With Trump's nominee to fill the vacant ninth seat, Neil Gorsuch, just beginning a lengthy confirmation process, the high court could decide not to hear the president's appeal or emerge with a 4-4 tie that would keep the lower court's ruling in place. Legal experts say that sets up a difficult path for Trump's Department of Justice as it tries to overturn the temporary restraining order put in place last Friday and restart the immigration ban. "The history of these challenges to presidential actions on immigration has been a pretty sharp partisan split," said Stephen Legomsky, professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and a former chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. "I wouldn't be surprised to see the 9th Circuit uphold the (temporary restraining order). And in the Supreme Court, I can easily imagine a 4-4 split."