A US federal appeals court will hear arguments on Tuesday over whether to restore President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries, the most controversial policy of his two-week-old administration.
In a brief filed on Monday, the Justice Department said last week's suspension of Trump's order by a federal judge was too broad and "at most" should be limited to people who were already granted entry to the country and were temporarily abroad, or to those who want to leave and return to the US.
That language did not appear in the government's opening brief filed at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and could represent a softening of its position.
Last Friday's ruling by US District Judge James Robart in Seattle suspending the travel ban opened a window for people from the seven affected countries to enter.
The new Republican president has said the travel measures are to protect the country against the threat of terrorism. Opponents say the 90-day ban is illegal, barring entry for citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and imposing a 120-day halt to all refugees.
National security veterans, major US technology companies and law enforcement officials from more than a dozen states backed a legal effort against the ban.
The case may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
Ten former US national security and foreign policy officials, who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, filed a declaration in the court case arguing that the travel ban served no national security purposes.
Over the weekend, the San Francisco court denied the administration's request for an immediate suspension of the federal judge's temporary restraining order that blocked the implementation of key parts of the travel ban while it considered the government's request in full.
The court did say it would consider the government's request after receiving more information.
“Radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland as they did on 9/11,” he said. “We need strong programmes for people who love our country,” Trump said, adding he did not want to allow “people who want to destroy us and destroy our country” into the US.
State Officials Oppose Ban
Opponents of the ban received far more filings in support of their position than the Justice Department. Washington state's challenge was backed by about a dozen friends-of-the-court briefs submitted by at least 17 state attorneys general, more than 100 companies and about a dozen labor and civil rights groups. About a dozen conservative groups supported the government in three such briefs.
President Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional, unlawful, and fundamentally un-American and we won’t stand by while it undermines our states’ families, economies, and institutionsEric Schneiderman, New York Democratic Attorney General
Trump faces an uphill battle in the San Francisco court, which is dominated by liberal-leaning judges. Appeals courts are generally leery of upending the status quo, which in this case is the lower court's suspension of the ban.
US presidents have in the past claimed sweeping powers to fight terrorism, but individuals, states and civil rights groups challenging the ban said his administration had offered no evidence that it answered a threat.
Trump has vented his frustration over the legal challenges with a volley of attacks on the judiciary. He derided Robart as a "so-called judge."
(Published in an arrangement with Reuters)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)