Trump lawyers grilled about campaign talk of ‘Muslim ban’
Validity of revised travel order argued before appeals court
A federal appeals court in Virginia on Monday grilled the Trump administration over its attempts to institute a travel ban against six majority-Muslim countries, repeatedly asking why it should ignore President Trump’s vows to institute a “Muslim ban” that would violate the First Amendment.
The judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond listed statements by Trump and his officials before and after he became president and signed two versions of the travel ban that stated, or hinted at, a religious basis for the executive orders.
“Is there anything other than willful blindness that would prevent us from getting behind those statements?” asked Judge Henry Floyd.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall responded that the second travel ban was revised to remove any mention of religion and a president needs to be able to act to defend the national security of the country, no matter what he said during the campaign.
“The statements were ambiguous,” Wall said. “The president clarified over time that what he was talking about were countries and territories that have known links to groups like ISIS (Islamic State) and al- Qaeda.”
The 13 appellate judges, which include 10 nominated by Democratic presidents, seemed likely to rule against Trump. But the hearing exposed potential problems with arguments laid out by immigration advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit.
During the two-hour hearing, the three judges who were appointed by Republican presidents pressed Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, asking how long Trump would be hamstrung by his previous comments.
“Can we look at his college speeches? How about his speeches to businessmen about 20 years ago? Are we going to look at those, too?” Judge Paul Niemeyer asked.
Judge Dennis Shedd asked what would happen if Trump apologized for his previous statements about Muslims and whether that would then allow him to institute his travel ban.
“What if he says I’m sorry every day for a year?” Shedd asked, drawing laughter.
Jadwat said none of that mattered given the long history of Trump’s views in this case.
“It’s possible that saying sorry isn’t enough,” he said. “That’s true in a lot of circumstances.”
Monday’s hearing was part of the ongoing legal battle over Trump’s attempts to temporarily suspend some portions of legal immigration to allow time to set up stronger vetting procedures.
The ban would block most immigration from six countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — from entering the U.S. for 90 days, and suspend the entire refugee program for 120 days.
Critics say Trump’s executive order is nothing more than the Muslim ban he promised during his presidential campaign.
His first order, signed Jan. 27, spurred chaos at airports around the world. It set off a rush of lawsuits that culminated with a federal judge in Washington state issuing a nationwide ban seven days later. That ruling was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The Trump administration decided not to appeal the ruling to the Su- preme Court, opting to revoke the order and issue a new one.
A federal judge in Hawaii then blocked the revised travel ban hours before it was to go into effect March 16. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson found “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” toward Muslims in the revised order. The next day, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland issued another nationwide block on a section of the travel order.
The 4th Circuit judges are handling the Maryland case, brought by several foreign-born people who are now U.S. citizens and green card holders. They fear their immediate relatives will be blocked from joining them under the travel ban. Next week, the 9th Circuit will hear oral arguments in the Hawaii case.
The ban will likely end up before the Supreme Court, now at full strength with Trump nominee Justice Neil Gorsuch.