Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. The legal fight over President
Speaker 1: Trump's proposed travel ban is about to heat is about
Speaker 1: to heat back up. Two federal appeals courts are poised
Speaker 1: to review the executive order, which would temporarily halt entry
Speaker 1: into the US by people from six mostly Muslim nations.
Speaker 1: The first of those arguments takes place in just about
Speaker 1: an hour and a half at the fourth Fourth U. S.
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Bloomberg News reporter
Speaker 1: Andrew Harris is outside the courthouse in Richmond for the argument. Uh,
Speaker 1: and he will. He's here with us to provide a preview. Andy,
Speaker 1: Thanks for taking the time. Um, the president generally has
Speaker 1: very broad power to determine who can come into the country,
Speaker 1: but two federal judges have blocked this policy. Tell us
Speaker 1: what the argument is against this proposed travel ban, well, Gregg.
Speaker 1: The argument goes all the way back to the days
Speaker 1: when Donald Trump was still a candidate for president of
Speaker 1: the United States, and they talked about imposing a full
Speaker 1: on Islam ban uh for a traveler entry into the
Speaker 1: US were he to become president. And he wasn't the
Speaker 1: only one that said something like that. UH, some of
Speaker 1: his UH associates and advisors said similar things, and by
Speaker 1: the time the first executive order was released on Januar
Speaker 1: it was why we perceived as following through on that promise,
Speaker 1: regardless of what it actually said on the printed paper. Well,
Speaker 1: so how is the how are the government lawyers going
Speaker 1: to try to get around this? I mean, the record
Speaker 1: on what the president and his advisor said about this
Speaker 1: is pretty clear, and the judge seemed to rely on
Speaker 1: it pretty heavily below Well, Greg, that's been a real
Speaker 1: problem for the administration. They struck out on the first
Speaker 1: executive order because they could not persuade the US Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals in San Francisco that this wasn't a Muslim ban.
Speaker 1: So they went back to the drawing board and they
Speaker 1: came back with way more robust version where they laid
Speaker 1: out the wise and ware forces to why the people
Speaker 1: that they wanted to keep out growth specific countries needed
Speaker 1: to be kept out for at least ninety days while
Speaker 1: they enhanced their vetting procedures. And the argument they're going
Speaker 1: to make to the court is that that's the reason,
Speaker 1: and that the judges are required to follow woods on
Speaker 1: the printed page and not look behind it at something,
Speaker 1: then candidate Trump said before we took the oath of office.
Speaker 1: Any there's been a lot of talk about the political
Speaker 1: significance of this case, the impact on people who might
Speaker 1: want to be coming into the US, But um, what
Speaker 1: do you see as sort of the broader significance of
Speaker 1: the legal issues that are are coming before the court,
Speaker 1: in particular when it comes to the power of the president. Well,
Speaker 1: that's kind of the irony here, Greg. This Muslim ban
Speaker 1: or whatever the administration wants to call it, was for
Speaker 1: a ninety day duration. There was a longer hundred twenty
Speaker 1: day freeze on refugees entering the country. So this is
Speaker 1: going to be a temporary a measure by its own terms.
Speaker 1: What it's not going to be so temporary is this
Speaker 1: fight over presidential power and the court's ability to look
Speaker 1: behind an executive order to see what the president really
Speaker 1: meant as opposed to what he said. And that's going
Speaker 1: to be with us for a long time. And one
Speaker 1: of the things that's unusual about what we're gonna see
Speaker 1: in court here is it the full circuit is going
Speaker 1: to hear it without having had a panel review at first.
Speaker 1: Do you think that bodes better or worse for the government. UM,
Speaker 1: difficult to say. A couple of Republican judges who would
Speaker 1: have been on the panel if all fifteen active judges
Speaker 1: are hearing this will not be. One of them a
Speaker 1: Reagan appointee j. Harvey Wilkinson, another a bushop pointee Alice
Speaker 1: and Duncan. So the remaining court is made up of
Speaker 1: seven Democratic appointees, three Republican appointees, and three judges who
Speaker 1: in their careers have been appointed direct federal courts position
Speaker 1: by either a Democrat and hell by both Democrat at
Speaker 1: and Republican presidents. So it's skewing Democratic and appointees. But
Speaker 1: that's no guarantee of an outcome. And he would just
Speaker 1: have about a minute left. But can you just sort
Speaker 1: of lay out of maybe a timeline for us or
Speaker 1: at least, you know, sort of discuss what will happen next.
Speaker 1: You have two federal judges who have issued orders blocking
Speaker 1: this UH. Does the Trump administration essentially have to win
Speaker 1: both the cases before both appeals courts in order to
Speaker 1: get this this UH travel ban into effect. Well, as
Speaker 1: you know, Greg, typically a circuit split, winning at least
Speaker 1: one of them would probably ensure US Supreme Court review
Speaker 1: given the gravity of the issues before the courts in
Speaker 1: this case, it is at least theoretically possible, also given
Speaker 1: the composition of the the U. S. Supreme Court, and that
Speaker 1: the court decides to take up the issue, even if
Speaker 1: the administration goes over to here and at the Cuderal
Speaker 1: Appeals Court in San Francisco next Monday. Okay, I think
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna be talking more about this, Andy,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Andy Harris Bloomberg bloom a news reporter.
Speaker 1: He's outside the Federal Courthouse in Richmond, where at two
Speaker 1: thirty East Coast time today, the Federal Appeals Court is
Speaker 1: going to hear arguments on Donald Trump's proposed travel ban