Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Reviewing yesterday’s 9th Circuit arguments




Opponents of U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order imposing a temporary immigration ban on seven Muslim-majority nations protest outside a federal appeals court February 7, 2016.
Opponents of U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order imposing a temporary immigration ban on seven Muslim-majority nations protest outside a federal appeals court February 7, 2016.
Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Listen to story

19:30
Download this story 9MB

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?

Guests:

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