State Of Washington v. Trump: Audio From The Appeals Court Hearing

Tyler Durden's picture

The Justice Department has asked the Court U.S. of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse a lower-court order barring travel-ban enforcement.

The proceeding and oral arguments will be heard at 6 p.m. EST, The hearing will be conducted telephonically, meaning that the judges and attorneys will be participating from their chambers and offices in different parts of the country. The proceeding does not take place in a courtroom, nor will there be any subsequent press conferences at a courthouse.

A live audio stream of the proceeding will be available beginning at 2:55 p.m.  Follow the hearing live with this feed.

Here are some of the key highlights from the hearing, courtesy of The Hill:

Administration lawyer faces more questions: 7:02 p.m.

In a short rebuttal, Flentje grew heated when pressed by Friedland on the plaintiff's submitted evidence that Trump has supported a Muslim ban in the past. He said it's "extraordinary" to second-guess the president's authority over national security "based on newspaper articles."

But Clifton asked whether he denies those statements were made. "No," Flentje replied.

Judges question states' claims of religious discrimination: 6:40pm

Judges pressed Purcell to back up the plaintiffs' claims that Trump's executive action amounts to religious discrimination.  The states said they believe the order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. "I'm not persuaded," Clifton said. The countries targeted "encompass only relatively small percentage of Muslims."

Purcell said states just needed to prove the order was motivated, in part, by a desire to discriminate against Muslims, citing Trump's remark in December 2015 about a "total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States." "There are statements that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims," Purcell said. "The public statement from the president and his top advisers."

Purcell said it is "remarkable" to have this much evidence of intent before the official pre-trial process known as discovery, but Clifton seemed unconvinced by his arguments and lack of hard evidence, pointing to foreign policy that treats citizens from certain nations differently. 

Lawyer describes "irreparable harm" of travel ban: 6:35 p.m.

Purcell moved on to the merits of the underlying immigration order and said it has inflicted irreparable damage to the states through lost tax revenues, separates families and residents afraid of traveling overseas.

States' attorney begins argument: 6:32 p.m.
The attorney for Washington and Minnesota argued that the administration pursued the wrong procedural move in requesting an appeal of a temporary restraining order, which are generally non-appealable. Trump's team says that it should be treated as a preliminary injunction. "Why should we care?" asked Clifton, who suggested that was the wrong argument to pursue.

Defense concludes argument: 6:30 p.m.

Flentje quickly ran up against his 30-minute window — he also reserved five minutes for rebuttal. As judges continued to pepper him with questions, Flentje made his final pitch to the panel: that the injunction against the travel ban is "over broad" and should be immediately stayed, even if the court takes issue with the executive action itself.

Judges press DOJ lawyer on reviewing Trump action: 6:25 p.m.

Canby repeatedly pressed Flentje on whether a state could challenge an order that banned Muslims outright. "That's not what this order does," Flentje said.

"I know. Could he? Would anyone be able to challenge that?" Canby asked. "That’s not what the order does," the lawyer said again.

Clifton chimed in, saying it's important because it speaks to whether states have standing to bring a lawsuit. "This is a far cry from that situation," Flentje said.

Earlier in the hearing, Friedland had asked if Trump's authority made his decision in this situation "unreviewable," to which Flentje responded: "yes."

DOJ lawyer faces questions from judges: 6:18 p.m.

Judges on the panel questioned whether there was any real evidence that the countries outlined in the order posed a real risk for terrorism, and asked for examples of federal offenses from visa holders from the seven nations. Flentje pointed back to the previous actions by Congress and the Obama administration identifying those countries as nations of concern, but said there was no evidence in the record.

"It's pretty abstract," one judge said. Flentje said of the legal proceedings: "These things are moving pretty fast."

A judge also shot back against Flentje's assertion that states don't have the legal standing to bring the lawsuit and challenge visa denials: "Sure they can," Judge Clifton said.

Department of Justice defends Trump's authority: 6:05 p.m.

The Trump administration kicked off its oral argument by pointing out that the seven countries targeted in the immigration order were previously identified as terrorism risks by Congress and the executive branch, and that it is in the president’s broad legal authority to protect the national interest.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
g'kar's picture

If the 9th circuit accepts the moronic Bush appointee's childish narrative, I wouldn't be surprised.

yellensNIRPles's picture

This is a critical point in history for US law and our republic. Big deal. Yuuuuuuge.

Deathrips's picture

Support the constitution or there is no America first.

Its black and white for a reason.



evoila's picture

I still think the easiest way to deal with this is to just threaten to halt all immigration for 3-4 months if this fails. As soon as you threaten that, you'll see all these companies supposedly taking the moral high ground throw muslims under the bus faster than any republican could have possibly done in a democrat's worst nightmare.

ACP's picture

Listening to the call - that dumb bitch judge sounds like a plaintiff, attacking the government attorney.

What a piece of shit.

Edit: Hell, pretty much all 3 are acting like plaintiffs. Must be scared of having protests outside their homes and death threats. Totally compromised.

Edit 2: Not the two lib judges are actively helping the Washington attorney. Disgusting.

Dutti's picture

My prediction, unfortunately:

2:1 against Trump...

ACP's picture

All the female judge asked the plaintiff, "If we were to agree with you, which case would we cite..."

Now the female judge is challenging the judge appointed by Bush in favor of the plaintiff.

What a crock.

Edit: Now the female crackpot is asking the plaintiff how she should write her opinion. WTF?

eatthebanksters's picture

This will go to the Supreme Court where it will be overturned.

SWRichmond's picture
Après moi le déluge
nmewn's picture

True enough, the Ninth Circus Court has a record of being overturned like 80% of the you imagine an employee only doing their job correctly 20% of the time and still having a job?

Only in politics, academia and the Ninth Circus ;-)

The Alarmist's picture

Yep.  So what is the problem?  Victim rights Trump Citizen Rights. /sarc>

SWRichmond's picture

There is no problem.  I am ready to swim.

caconhma's picture


Trump is not one who can say: Veni, vidi, vici!

Flatchestynerdette's picture

Yep. The judges pushed their own ideology in their questioning. Nothing was clear cut as "Does the US government have the right to allow who it wants in the country or not?"

No, it was more along the line of "The state has the right to protect its people from the gov't".

Really? Where the fuck was the 9th circuit during AZ's SB1060 law when they wanted to protect their people from the US gov't under Obama.

The problem is they've got a third tier DOJ lawyer who isn't hitting it hard enough. The first 2 tiers had to recuse themselves b/c their lawfirms are involved in the Washington/Portland case.

SWRichmond's picture

Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political system.  The establishment clause is actually the thing which should protect us from Islam, not the thing which should be used to overturn Trump's order.  By the time this fact occurs to these judges, the woman will be wearing a hajib.

ChanceIs's picture

Yes, Islam is not a religion but rather a theocracy masquerading as religion.  Furthermore it is impossible to be racist against muslims, because muslim is not a race rather a magazine subscription.

The quran is to Islam, as Mein Kampf is to rabid German socialist nationalists (that would include Kaiser Willie), as Mao's little red book is to Chinese nationalist communism.  Islam is more successful because it pretends to adhere to a god whilst Mao and Adolph told the peons that they were the god.

Koba the Dread's picture

So are Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Shinto political systems. Or, in the alternative, if they are not then neither is Islam.

It should be born in mind that the first country to acknowledge the legitimacy of the United States of America was Muslim Morocco. in the late 1700s the United States Congress ratified several treaties with Morocco. Islam isn't the problem; the problem is Israel. Israel and Zionism have worked hard to undermine Christianity in the west through the Jewish program of cultural Marxism. Israel and Zionism have worked equally hard to foment strife between Islam and the west.

Keep your eye on the ball, my coach used to say. You cross-eyed morons are not doing that. The problem is Zionist supremism, not Islam.

Giant Meteor's picture

The special counsel did a bit better in the last 5 minutes, probably better in the last five minutes than all the rest of his argument. He settled down, had a chance to gather himself ... and focus. It was more effective. 

brianshell's picture

That Freidland kept interrupting him with antagonistic questions until his time was nearly up. I have seen that done by other judges and it seems really prejudist.

As far as the eventual legal argument about islam, someone, eventually, must separate the ideological component of islam. Say, anyone can pray to Allah, but they can't break the law. The law takes precedence. First any person or group that advocates insurrection against the people of the united states is a criminal. Therefore anyone that preaches the written scripture of the three books of islam is an insurrectionist.

ChanceIs's picture

One upon a time there was an ambitious person from Arkansas.  His father died in a ditch.  Actually he wasn't that ambitious, but his wife sure was.  She was a bi&^h, but he was smooth as silk.  He became president of the US and she gave it a good run for the money.  (Get for the money....THE MONEY)  Of course by now you know I am speaking of the Clintons.

When she became president - effectively but not officially - she had to make her cabinet appointments.  She nominated one Zoe Baird to be Attorney General.  Of course Zoe had been employing illegal aleins (actually I prefer criminal barbarians) and didn't even bother to pay social security taxes for them.  This of course was NannyGate.  She was found to be unworthy of the post.(And the Dems are blocking Sessions???  How many illegals did he hire?)

You see, it is illegal to hire criminal barbarians.  You wrote that the easiest thing to do is to halt all immigration.  While that is certainly prudent, the easiset thing by far is to start jailing the employers.  We could begin with Nancy Pelosi who has them all pover her extesive palntations in California.

You really don't have to convict any of them.  Just throw them in jail in the general population for a few nights under suspision.  It will get plenty of publicity as a Trump Nazi raid.  Trump is soooooo good at using the press.  Those who still have criminal barbarian employees will get rid of them at once just to preserve their back sides.  You know what ai mean by that.

Simple.  Simple is always best.

caconhma's picture

President Trump and his administration including his lawyers are Incompetent Shit.

The situation is simple: either a US president is responsible for the National Security or the USA is gone as a sovereign country on a verge of a civil war. The END of the story.

evoila's picture

The government lawyer is completely incoherent. The Friedlander judge is guaranteed to vote against administration; the other two are the only hope

caconhma's picture

The case will go to the Supreme Court. 

Looking at the Trump administration, one can say that they are utterly incompetent.  Trump's people are POS since Trump even did not know what to look for.

Today, Trump's lawyer did not understand what he was talking about. Unfortunately, we got a total National degeneration. Consequently, America needs a visionary revolutionary instead of a buffoon.

Omen IV's picture

decisions now are largely polticial neither based on fact or logic in the work place and government - the country is drifting to complete incoherence


taking risks based upon considered facts may be irrational

NoPension's picture

These judges are making POLITICAL decisions!

Politics is NOT their purvue. Trump, as President, canban a group because he doesn't like their hairstyle. Period. End of fucking story.

Don't like it? Vote harder for your guy next time.

I'd cry foul if the Rupubs where doing this to Obama. This is dangerous fucking territory.

Very. Fucking. Dangerous.

Hey folks, maybe the threat is real...maybe it's not so much....but what about the day it's condition RED, code 1, FUCKING undeniable emergency??!! A couple of cunts in robes, call the fucking shots??

And if you don't think this...or you think that...tough. You are NOT the fucking president. He ran and won the office. It's his call..period.

The law and constitution is CRYSTAL clear. CRYSTAL.

GreatUncle's picture

What makes a country? It's constitution and sovereignty ... once it is broken and sold to a foreign power .... poof! No more.

UK right now is exactly that ... will the US fold next?

SilverRhino's picture

Steamroller these fuckers. 

shivura's picture

trump=constitution, why does anyone believe this

sgt_doom's picture



Amicus Brief:  Fake News Exposed

If these 93 high tech corporations have filed an amicus brief against that 7-country ban, stating that it impacts their global recruiting [regular employess or foreign visa replacement workers, one wonders???] explains the absolute lie the Fake News have been forever claiming:  e.g., 4 workers for everone 1 job opening, we have heard, or something similar, over the past 30 some years!

But if these and similar companies recruit globally, then it is really one position opening for hundreds of millions of workers/applicants, correct?

So, truthfully, if their amicus brief is to be believed, there's hundreds of millions of workers for each available position?

If the judges in any way go with the gist of this brief, then the laws must be upheld across the board; meaning all those times corporations illegally advertised for positions when they were purposely seeking foreign visa replacement workers (the Lebowitz option) or were illegally replacing American workers with foreign visa replacement workers, or undocumented workers, then the laws must be upheld, not just this one time!  And when companies insource workers to be used as temporary personnel, without a firm contract, that too is against the existing law.


The Lebowitz Option

junction's picture

Aide to Trump: "President Trump, by accident we gave the Ninth Circuit technician a wrong number, for a a porn hot line.  Now we can't get through to him, the line is always busy."

Trump: "You're fired!"

booboo's picture

Trump don't need their approval and they know it

g'kar's picture

Your post should have been the first post...sorry

dvfco's picture

Grab 'em by the pussies!

buzzsaw99's picture

trump looks as if he suffers from chronic constipation. lulz

Fiscal Smegma's picture

Obama looked like a big pile of shit

Donald J. Trump's picture

Trump is about to shit out an Obama.

orangegeek's picture

oh good one snowflake - you made a funny ya shitbag fucking cunt!!!

g'kar's picture

One of your finest trolls buzz

NoWayJose's picture

The 'good' Muzzies who want to be here and be peaceful - need to step up in support of extreme vetting - if they want to be accepted by non-Muzzies. Until the radical terrorists are screened out or stopped, the whole Muzzie community is going to be looked at and treated as if they could be terrorists.

I don't fear Irishmen, because we screen out IRA radicals and they do not commit acts of terror here. If we have open borders and let radical Muslims in - then the Muslim community will never be accepted and trusted!

Kefeer's picture

A true Muslim is always a radical because their religion demands it and since the "religion of peace" allows for lying, the gateway to all other sin/evil, then you cannot expect nor will they EVER assimilate.

WorkingClassMan's picture

Why should they assimilate?  Let them be the best Muslims they can Arab and traditionally Muslim lands.


Same with any other mystery meat that slides into this country.

brianshell's picture

I can't wait for a court case where the horrors of islam as written in the three books is presented line by line as evidence in considering them a threat to humanity.

cheech_wizard's picture

So the Ninth District Court of Appeals hasn't yet read my new book "U.S. Code for Dummies"?

There is a special chapter devoted solely to Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, § 1182...

Hey Assholes's picture

The lawyer for the administration sucks.

Global Hunter's picture

maybe they want it to go to Supreme Court?

ejmoosa's picture

I am listening...and he's getting it from three sides at once.

I am sure it's not easy, but he doesn't seem completely prepared.

Giant Meteor's picture

He was going up against a loaded deck, right from the beginning ...

They are tag teaming him, their minds already made up ..

Hey Assholes's picture

I agree it can't be easy. He is being tag teamed. His logic is sound. But they keep interrupting him. The bitch should shut up.

caconhma's picture

Once, I told to my boss that he gave me a very difficult assignment. His reply was: we are no paying you big money to tell us that the task is challenging. So, go and solve it!