1. Judges Ask for Evidence to Support the Travel Ban
Arguing for the federal government that the executive order was “well within the president’s power as delegated to him by Congress,” Flentje soon found himself on the defensive as Friedland pressed for evidence the government relied on to determine the risks posed by immigrants from the seven countries affected by the executive order.
2. Washington Solicitor General Argues Ban Is Motivated by Religious Discrimination
Purcell argued that “shocking evidence” of Trump’s “intent to discriminate against Muslims” is proof that the travel ban is unconstitutional because it was motivated by religious discrimination.
3. Judges Ask Whether the President Could Legally Ban All Muslims
Flentje was repeatedly asked by the judges if the president could explicitly bar all Muslims from entering the country without review by the judicial branch.
4. Solicitor General Points to the Chaotic Rollout of the Executive Order
Purcell argued that the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order led to even legal permanent U.S. residents’ getting swept up in the chaotic first few days.
5. DOJ Lawyer Says Temporary Restraining Order Is Too Broad
Flentje argued that the temporary restraining order issued by Robart last week is too broad and that the plaintiff states have no standing to challenge the president’s authority to enforce provisions of the order affecting refugees and visa holders who have never before been admitted to the U.S.