May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s administration went to federal court once again Monday to appeal a nationwide restraining order that’s keeping his so-called “travel ban” from taking effect.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall was questioned by a panel of judges Monday in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia about why the injunction should be lifted and Trump should be allowed to put a 90-day suspension on U.S. entry by immigrants from six largely Muslim countries.
The administration is attempting to defend the second attempted order by Trump after the first was soundly defeated in federal court.
Among the answers the panel sought Monday was how the second order differs from the first, which was ruled unconstitutional by courts in Seattle and San Francisco. Courts in Maryland and Hawaii halted the second order, which had been designed to withstand legal scrutiny.
One of the judges, Robert B. King, pointed out that the so-called “Muslim ban” Trump repeatedly spoke of during his run for president was still on his campaign website as of Monday. A short time later, it was removed.
Many observers and legal jurists have argued since January that Trump’s ban on refugees is merely an attempt to make good on that campaign promise. A judge on the Maryland court also acknowledged that was likely true. Trump, though, has said the order is based in national security.
“[Trump] made it clear he was not talking about Muslims all over the world, that’s why it’s not a Muslim ban,” Wall said Monday, adding that the order is intended to allow U.S. officials to better screen foreign nationals set to enter the country. When asked if Trump’s government has indeed stepped up its vetting process, Wall said no.
“What we have been doing since January 27 is just litigating this order,” he answered.
Wall also said the president’s order is neutral, a claim Judge Albert Diaz questioned.
“In what sense is it neutral?” The countries selected for the ban are almost all Muslim.,” he said.
In March, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang declared the 90-day ban unconstitutional and ordered it blocked nationwide. Monday’s hearing initiated the government’s appeal of that decision. The order also seeks a ban for all refugees worldwide for 120 days, but that provision was blocked by the Hawaiian court.
Wall attempted to illustrate a difference by saying Trump promised the “Muslim ban” before he was actually president.
“It is an archived press statement from 16 months ago,” he said. “We took an oath and formed a government.”
Legal observers don’t give Trump’s order much chance of winning over the Virginia appeals court. Ten of the court’s 13 judges who heard Monday’s arguments were appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, perhaps the most conservative judge on the bench, has recused himself from the matter because Wall is his son in-law.
It’s unclear when the 4th Circuit Court will rule on the matter. However, judges accelerated the process Monday by having the case heard by the full court — instead of just three judges it typically assigns to hear initial arguments.
In order for Trump’s order to take effect, his administration needs to win the Virginia appeal and the upcoming challenge in the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Seattle — or hope the Supreme Court intervenes on its behalf. The Seattle appeal is scheduled for May 15.
