Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard arguments over President Trump’s travel moratorium on seven predominantly Muslim countries.
The states of Washington and Minnesota challenged the U.S. government over the constitutionality of the moratorium, saying it was aimed to ban Muslims in particular. The Justice Department defends that the moratorium is not aimed at a particular religious group, but instead is meant to halt travel from nations associated with terrorism.
What were the arguments for and against the ban in yesterday’s hearing? How effective were both sides in arguing their points?
Robert (Bobby) Charles, president and managing member of The Charles Group, a Washington D.C.-based law firm; he is a former Assistant Secretary of State under President George W. Bush and also clerked for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Pratheepan (Deep) Gulasekaram, associate professor of law at Santa Clara Law, where he specializes in constitutional and immigration law