A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments on Monday over President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, the second such court to review Trump's directive over the past week.
Continue Reading Below
A three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, made up entirely of judges appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, will review a Hawaii judge's ruling that blocked parts of the Republican president's revised executive order on travel.
The March order was Trump's second effort to craft travel restrictions. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports before being blocked by courts. The second order was intended to overcome the legal problems posed by the original ban, but was also suspended by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked 90-day entry restrictions on people from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, as well as part of the order that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days.
Last week the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia reviewed a Maryland judge's ruling that blocked the 90-day entry restrictions. That court is largely made up of Democrats, and the judges' questioning appeared to break along partisan lines. A ruling has not yet been released.
Arguing that the United States needed to tighten national security measures, Trump's attempt to limit travel was one of his first major acts in office. The fate of the ban is one indication of whether the Republican can carry out his promises to be tough on immigration and national security.
Opponents - including the state of Hawaii and civil rights groups - say that both the first ban and the revised ban discriminate against Muslims. The government argues the text of the order does not mention any specific religion and is needed to protect the country against attacks.
The 9th Circuit hearing on Monday will take place in Seattle. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to be the ultimate decider, but the high court is not expected to take up the issue for several months.
(Writing by Dan Levine; Editing by Mary Milliken)