Trump administration defends travel ban in court

LOS ANGELES: The US Justice Department faced tough questioning Tuesday as it urged a court of appeals to reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, put on hold in a legal challenge last week.

The latest twist in the showdown comes four days after a federal judge suspended Trump’s decree, re- opening US borders to the thousands of refugees and travellers who had been suddenly barred from the country.

Three judges from an appellate court in San Francisco chaired an hour-long telephone hearing followed online by more than 130,000 people — a record, the court said — and broadcast live to millions more on television.

During the high-stakes hearing, an attorney for the government argued that Trump’s immigration curbs were motivated by national security concerns and that the federal judge had overstepped his authority in suspending them.

“This is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the president,” Justice Department lawyer August Flentje argued.

He said Trump had acted within his constitutional powers and those delegated to him by Congress in issuing the Jan 27 executive order in the interest of the US.

Tuesday’s hearing was focused on whether to lift the suspension of the ban, not on the constitutionality of the decree itself — a broader battle that looks likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

The appeals court would probably rule later this week, a court spokesman said.

The three-judge panel often appeared skeptical during the hearing, with Judge Richard Clifton at one point calling the government’s argument ‘ pretty abstract’.

The judges questioned Flentje about the evidence connecting the seven targeted countries to terrorism, and pressed him on whether the ban amounts to religious discrimination, as its opponents claim. The White House insists the decree is in the interest of national security, giving the new administration time to beef up vetting procedures to keep potential terrorists out of the country.

Its detractors claim it violates the constitution by discriminating against people on the basis of their religion. — AFP