08 February 2017•Update: 08 February 2017
NEW YORK
A three-judge panel late Tuesday expressed skepticism about reinstating President Donald Trump's travel ban.
During a hearing, the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco called into question the notion of the president suspending entry for a group based on perceived national security concerns.
A federal court in Seattle, Washington, last Friday, placed a restraining order on the executive action but Justice Department lawyer August Flentje argued Tuesday for the removal of the restriction.
Flentje responded in the affirmative when Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether he was arguing the president's decision was "unreviewable".
Asked by Judge William Canby Jr. whether the president could say in the order, "We’re not going to let any Muslims in", Flentje said the plaintiff in the State of Washington v. Trump case would not be able to challenge such a decision, but individuals might sue on grounds it constitutes religious discrimination.
The court said the decision whether to reinstate the ban would be delivered "probably this week".
The executive order Trump signed Jan. 27 -- a week into his presidency -- bars nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days, freezes the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and bans Syrian refugees indefinitely.
Before being halted by Judge James Robart of the Federal District Court in Seattle, the ban caused tens of thousands of visas to be revoked and led to dozens of detentions nationwide, triggering mass protests across the country.
On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly defended the ban as "legal and constitutional", while admitting a misstep by enforcing it before consulting Congress.
