any response from president trump? >> reporter: no response yet from the white house or president trump, anderson. of course, this was supposed to be somewhat of a quiet, festive weekend here at mar-a-lago. president trump did arrive here around 5:00 p.m. he is at mar-a-lago now. it was supposed to be a weekend working with his staff, his advisers, also attending that international red cross ball tomorrow night. now the issue of president trump's executive order on immigration forcing to the forefront again. this issue in legal limbo. we did hear from that federal judge in washington state, issuing that temporary restraining order halting president trump's executive order. this has been in the courts all throughout the country, this order in washington state does apply nationwide. while the white house has not spoken out about it, we're still waiting for a response. >> senate minority leader, chuck schumer issued a quick response

saying it is a victory for the nation. according to a justice department lawyer, about 100,000 visas had already been revoked. the state department later dialed that number back to about 60,000 visas. so those people in those seven-affected muslim-majority countries, those visas have been revoked. so it's not like practically these people would be able to hop on planes, they would have to apply for visas. so the practical effect is still about the same as it was a week ago. we're waiting for the white house response, waiting to see whether this will likely be appealed to the ninth circuit court, but a lot unraveling right now in what was supposed to be somewhat of a low-key weekend for president trump, a festive weekend. he's here at mar-a-lago, expected to a expected to attend that red cross ball tomorrow. >> we'll check in with you if we

hear anything from mar-a-lago. jim acosta is at the white house. any word from there? >> reporter: not yet, anderson. we do know from talking to people in the administration that they do plan to have some kind of statement, some time tonight. it's unclear when that's going to come. they're aware of this ruling, they're aware of this temporary restraining order, but maggie haberman was on earlier saying they may take their time with this. that could be the case. however, we should point out, this administration all week long, this white house all week long has been almost pug nashs in defending this executive order. there hadn't been an acknowledgement that they botched the rollout of the executive order, although there are a number of republicans saying that up on capitol hill. as soon as we get that statement to you we'll bring it to you, but earlier this week, the justice department for this administration handed out guidance, saying that they believe that this executive order is legal and, you know, just consider the brouhaha that

we just saw develop throughout the week. the acting attorney general sally yates was personally fired by the president because she would not carry out this order. she issued a statement saying she believed that this executive order is not legal. that resulted in a personal firing where the president of the united states personally let her go, just to show how strongly he feels about this. so make no mistake, anderson, this white house is not going to get over this executive order without a fight. they are likely going to send out a statement tonight. my guess is that it's going to say that they are very confident that they're going to prevail on the appellate level and that this executive order is here to stay. as of this point, as you just heard from jessica schneider, the president was expected to have a pretty low-key weekend, he was going to watch the super bowl, go do a red cross gala tomorrow and so forth, but now they have a very messy legal

entanglement over the next 24-48 hours. my guess is that we will get a response from this white house before tomorrow. >> jim acosta, thank you very much. and we've been gathering potential impact on all this, people wanting to come to the country who had visas, the visas were rescinded, the airlines and more. any word from customs and border protection, which is really critical in trying to figure out what the ramifications of this judge's ruling are? >> reporter: you are right, anderson, they are a critical part of this. when it comes down do what does did mean for people who want to fly from point a to point b who have visas, the word and that guidance to airlines is going to come from cbp. and airlines will not make any decisions on their own until they get that guidance from customs and border protection. so that's a situation that we're in now.

we did speak with a spokesperson who, i would say, about an hour ago, we essentially alerted them to what was happening there in seattle, what had unfolded in seattle, and so they were just kind of getting up to speed. at this hour, we do know that members at dhs, department of homeland security and cbp are all trying to wrap their minds around what do they do next. but what is so important here is that you know, the million dollar question is what does it mean for travelers, and at this point, i would say that everything that you knew or every rule that was in place yesterday or even earlier today, it essentially remains in place right now until we hear from the cbp. and here's why i say that. for u.s. carriers, in many cases, if a traveler shows up at an airport their travel documents are scanned, and that

is scanned through an automatic system. if the cbp doesn't update their system to say this person is good to board, the person, the cbp officer or the airline will see a message that says "no board", and the airline will never go against that. if it says "no board", the individual will never be allowed on the plane, because they can be fined if they don't follow their guidance. >> there are moving parts to this, it's too soon to know what the ramifications are. if the judge's order is upheld by the fifth circuit, assuming that the white house is going to contest it, which we assume they would. and we still need to know the parameters of the ruling, does this apply to only those people who have their visas rescinded. i appreciate that. we're going to thicheck in more. joining us now is washington

attorney general bob ferguson. first of all, we are still waiting for the entire judge's ruling. the written-out version. this was just an oral ruling initially, do you know when that's going to be released? >> yeah, my recollection, anderson, from his oral decision was that that would come very shortly. i think could potentially be tonight, if i remember his words correctly or certainly by this weekend. and just what one of your earlier guests said in mentioning that the administration is going to be pug nay shus, i'm going to be pug nashs in defending the constitution of the united states. president trump violated that, and that's not okay. and we're going to make sure he upholds the law in this country. >> what does that mean? where are you prepared to go with this? what is your argument? >> we'll go wherever we need to go. but what we saw a matter of a couple hours ago, a federal

judge, appointed by president george w. bush issued a temporary restraining order, shutting down an executive order signed by the president of the united states. federal judges don't do that lightly. you have to show that you're likely to prevail on the merits, that there's significant harm that will be done if the judge does not take that action. those are steep hurdles and the judge met each of those hurdles. >> when you say shutting down the executive order, do you know if that means shutting down the rescinding of the visas to whether it's 60,000 or 100,000 people who had their visas rescinded or shutting down the executive order meaning there will be no pause in the granting of the regular granting process for visas from these seven countries. do we know at this stage? >> i'm not sure we can say at this stage, that level of specificity around the visas i

can't speak to right now. what i can speak to is what judge robart ruled. the judge was crystal clear. it is my expectation that the federal government will honor that order immediately and take steps to allow folks who have been denied coming into our country to now come into our country. the judge was very, very clear on that point. >> a lot of people watching tonight might be surprised that a judge in washington state in a courtroom can make a ruling that has nationwide implications. so if you can explain kind of just take us back to what your argument was and how this played out. ba because you've fought this on a number of grounds. >> and you raised a good point. it's not intuitive. how can any judge in any federal court take an action like that. this is not unprecedented. we saw that when president obama was president, when republican

a.g.s, and rulings shutting down action by president obama. so there's nothing unusual about it from that respect. arguments in a nutshell were in two different buckets, anderson. we have constitutional claims, in other words, that the executive order violates basic constitutional policies like due process, equal protection. you cannot favor one religion over another. we had a group of claims that are statutory in nature. so in other words, saying that the president's action violated specific federal statutes like the nationality act. the judge did not pick and choose which ones he thought were most persuasive. we might see that in his order in the next couple days, but the judge did conclude that we were likely to prevail on the merits of this action. >> and that's an important point and i think bears repeating that in your belief, your

interpretation is that the judge by making the ruling that he has made, though he's not ruling on the constitutional merits of your argument, you believe this is an indication that, were he to rule on that, he would rule in your favor? >> what i can tell you, anderson, is the standard is very explicit to get a temporary restraining order, and that's not easy to get for all obvious reasons. we, the state of washington, i had to show, to demonstrate, that we were likely to prevail on the merits when the judge eventually gets that point. the judge had to reach that conclusion that we are likely to prevail on the merits. that's a high hurdle, obviously, a few days after filing a complaint, but the judge did conclude that in order to grant our motion for the temporary restraining order. >> why was this something that you filed? washington state, i assume that are are a number number of bus

washington, amazon and others, did they play a role in this? >> they did, i guess, why i filed it, a couple thoughts. number one is we are a nation of laws. right? and i had a clear view and opinion that the executive order was unconstitutional, and my legal team agreed. and we moved very, i have quickly, literally working around the clock, and that is not an exaggeration, around the clock since last weekend to prepare our complaint and our motion. the reason i feel so strongly is the executive order of such magnitude that the president signed, just is a violation of our constitution and different statutes. it impacts so many wash tone yans in so many ways. i deeply appreciate businesses like expedia and amazon here in washington state that last weekend when i reached out to them quickly wrote declarations for our filing before the court in support. and their declarations go to

issues of how this impacts their employees adversely and adversely impacts their business. so i think that helps us make our case that there's an adverse impact not just to washingtonens but to businesses. >> obviously, people are going to see this through a political lens. are you a democrat but you're pointing out that the judge who has made this order tonight, he's a republican, appointed by george w. bush, right? >> that's correct, and one mother thimore thing i'll say about this, saying it's a political thing, that's what someone says when they don't have an argument. >> i twice sued the obama administration, things i don't do lightly. i deeply respect the president, but that is still relevant to my decision on whether to file a lawsuit against the federal government. if they are violating the law, it is my responsibility, anderson to defend the rights of

washingtonens. it doesn't matter if he or she is democrat or republican, irrelevant. so for folks who want to say this is political, a, they don't know what they're talking about, b, they don't know my record, and c, they don't understand the constitution. >> i'm not smart enough to have gone to law school, but we do have lawyers with us. >> i want to commend you. i think the adversary system requires that you bring this kind of action and bring it vigorously, and i commend you for getting the result you got. but as you now in massachusetts a judge came to a somewhat different result, and we're going to see in the days that come, probably a variety of different results around the country, and what impact do you think it's going to have that some judges have refused to grant stays and have come to conclusions that seem inconsistent with the judge in your case. obviously, the government is going to appeal your case to the ninth circuit, probably the plaintiffs will appeal the

massachusetts case to the first circuit. we're going to have conflicting rulings, won't this ultimately have to go do the united states supreme court, initially to the circuit justice and perhaps the whole sdmort -- court? >> thanks for that question. we've been prepared since last weekend when i asked my team to draft this complaint and motion. it was my feeling that an issue of this magnitude would likely end up before the united states supreme court. that would not surprise me. i do think that the judge's decision here today and the strong indication of where this case is heading and i'm confident we'll prevail in the ninth court of appeals. it will not surprise me if it does end up before the united states supreme court. >> would it surprise you also if the judges ultimately ruled that some parts of the executive order may be unconstitutional, but other parts may be constitution a for example, a family in yemen who has no connection to the united states that simply wants to visit and

is turned down for a visa, what kind of standing would they have to challenge this, and can they use your standing as the attorney general of washington to bring this challenge, a challenge that they couldn't otherwise bring? >> yeah, that's a complicated question, but to be clear in the action that we brought, in my clips made clear that the case we are bringing are on behalf of the washingtonens in the state, that are aware of the circumstances of folks trying to come to our country, we're bringing it on behalf of the people of our state. i can't speak for the impact on others around the world, but the case we are bringing, professor is based, and the judge found we had standing because of the harm done to washingtonens and businesses and colleges here in our state. >> and one final question, would you bring a contempt order against the president of the united states if he fails to comply with this order? would you actually try to hold him in contempt of court?

>> look, i want to be crystal clear. it is my expectation that the president in this administration will follow what judge robart issued. i will use every tool i have. nothing is more sacred than the rule of law in our country. it applies to everybody in the country, even the president. in some respects, especially the president. that's why i went to law school and why i became an attorney to uphold the constitutional rights of the people i represent, and yes, you can be sure i'll use every tool at my disposal to make sure the federal government abides by this ruling. >> is it something that could take place this weekend? >> it's the ninth circuit.

d they could seek an immediate review. think could wait until judge robart issues a final decision on the merits to our complaint and our motion here in the western district of washington. that will be up to the federal government to decide. what i told my team to do fwfbee i came to the studio was get a good night's rest, because we will be right back at it tomorrow. we're we're prepared to work around the clock. >> i know a number of my panel have questions for you. >> could you help us, sir, if you were to prevail, not only on the temporary restraining order but on the merits, on the substance underneath, what, you know, what cures are you seeking in the executive order, so we know how the world may change. obviously, the federal government, the president does

have authority to strengthen and, the vetting process. we've seen that in numerous presidents, especially since 9/11. what are you arguing this administration can do that would cure the problems you're raising? >> i guess i'm not sure i'm in a position to say, my job is not the to cure it, but to point out the unconstitutionality of the order. part of the case made by the lawyers for the federal government today but as the judge asked a number of times, hey, are there any limits to that, and the lawyers for the federal government did not want to answer that question directly, but there are limits to any president's action. >> can you give us two or three specifics that you would strike down if you win? >> section three and section

five are the focus of what our claims are directed at. we have the statutory claims as well. for example there was no due process whatsoever for individuals who were denied entry to this country, basic due process suggests you have to follow and allow certain due process for the people of our country, they're entitled to that under the constitution. so that's an example of an order that failed the test that the court was looking at. >> mr. attorney general we've got to point out to our viewers, seven pages of the judge's ruling. we're all going through it, but i now paul callan would like to ask you a question 689 >> >> i think a lot of americans are wondering why the state of washington, why a federal judge? the state of washington, why does his order bind the wholeunited statwhol whole united states of america when there are other judges in other districts who disagree.

do you think you should have waited to see how the other district courts viewed it? does that strike you as being a fair way to approach it? >> i'm not going to wait. quite the opposite. i instructed my team last weekend, we're working through the weekend. we're filing monday. i'm not going to wait one hour, one day longer when the constitutional rights of appeal of my state are being violated bit president. number two, i've not seen what the massachusetts judge ruled today. but multiple judges, as you know, rule netherlands favkno know, ruled in favor of individuals who were denied entry to this country. so the overwhelming of majority of these judges have ruled in favor of small groups of individuals or in our situation in behalf of the state of washington. so it's very clear what direction judges are going on this. >> i understand that, mr. attorney general, but the

question is, you haven't even read the judge's order, and were you asking the judge to impose it on the entire united states. don't you think you're moving a little bit too quickly? >> you may think we're moving to quickly to uphold the constitutional rights for the people of my state, but i do not. and the judge was very clear in his oral rule. and to be candid, when president obama was president, republican a.g.s challenged aspects of executive orders that he made. and it affected the entire country. but to be clear, there is no part of my job stripgs thdescri says i should wait to uphold the constitutional rights of my state. people fly from all sorts of different airports as they fly into my state. my lawsuit was joined by the state of minnesota as well, and the judge mentioned that. so in order to achieve the relief we're seeking, i think

the judge promoteappropriately this. >> is there anything you have to say about how people should proceed at all if this does change anything? or do they have to wait until the ninth circuit rules? is there anything you can directly say to them? >> anderson, i wish i could answer that question. we literally walked out of the courtroom about an hour and a half ago. i'm sure these things will be worked out soon. the bottom line is, though, the federal government has a responsibility to move quickly. >> was their ability to argue this in the court in washington against you, was it affected by what happened with the department of justice where the acting assistant attorney general told her attorneys to not defend this and then she obviously was fired and replaced? i mean, i assume there were federal lawyers arguing against your case. >> i'm glad you asked that question, anderson, because of

course there were attorneys there for the federal government, they did an excellent job. they're excellent attorneys. i know who they are. i read their brief, their braef was filed at midnight last night. i received a copy of their brief. it was excellent. they did a very good job advocating for their position around d and did an excellent job answering difficult questions from judge robart. i would encourage your legal experts to take a look at their briefs, it was very well done and praised by the judge u >> denny? >> i think mr. attorney general you haven't had the benefit of reading this yet. this is hot off the presses to us. it's interesting, we were talking about, enforcing the power of a federal court to enforce this law, not only notice state where it sits but nationwide, and it appears that this judge in his opinion addressed just that, citing precedents in the fifth circuit that the immigration laws of the

united states should be enfoursed vigorously and uniformly, and you also retreat back to basic principles like marbury v madison. they can question and ultimately strike down federal law, so it's not a great stretch to say that an executive order falls within that family. >> i appreciate it. i have not had a chance to read it, as you pointed out. and i appreciate you mentioning it. those are important principles. i recognize it may be counter intuitive to folks watching, hey, how can any judge around the country have that kind of impact, but it is not unusual. judges do have that power, particularly notice area you mentioned. >> mr. attorney general i will point out, too, this short opinion here does not mention which of your grounds, constitutional or statutory, it based this tro on. and i am going to, i'm sure you're going to find that very curious and wonder when you're going to get some clarity.

>> what he needed to find, the standard of review that he was looking at today for our tro, for our temporary restraining order, was likely hood of success on the merits kbhiened with other factors, and he found we had a likelihood of success. i'm confident things will go our way. >> professor dershowitz wants to ask you a question. >> it does say that the statute requires uniformity. but now we have one judge in washington saying uniformity around the country requires that it be blocked and another judge in another part of the country saying uniformity around the country requires that it not be blocked. so ultimately, the case for uniformity is not settled when you have different judges make being different orders. one other point. you mentioned due process. the supreme court has been very clear that that family in yemen

who was denied a visa has no right to due process. due process only applies to americans, either american citizens or green cardholders, but there is no due process right to get a visa for anybody abroad. so i think although the judge did a very good job on the uniformity, i don't think he wrote a particularly compelling decision on why it's likely to succeed on the merits in striking down the entire, the entire order. and so i think you're going to have an uphill fight in the ninth circuit, in defending his opinion as it relates to the entire order. how are you going to deal with that? >> you having to try to take half a loaf if you can get and strike down part of the order as it relates to washington state? >> i will not take half a loaf when it comes to constitution. number two, professor, i've not seen the massachusetts decision

or the written order. i'll take a look at that, and my team will be looking at those. but your point about due process for someone outsides country i think is well taken. that was mentioned in court today. those points well taken. i'm just not in a position to address your point about massachusetts. >> i still want to commend you. look, you've brought this to a point now, you've done a great job. whether in the end you win or lose, you've done the job of the attorney general. you've represented the people of your state, the businesses of your state, and whether you win or lose, i think the people of the state of washington should be very proud of you having brought this issue to a head. so congratulations to you. >> thanks for saying that. i do plan -- [ audio issues ] >> viewers, initial contact with

airlines who plan to get more guidance about the impact of the judge's order. i think paul callan, i'm sure you warrant nt to get a glass o water. >> i've had a chance to look at it now, the specific provisions. the judge did force his attention, really, to specific aspects of the executive order. he talks about the 90-day suspension. that, now, has been eliminated. the 120-day rule. he's not alloy beiwing that to t in place. the restrictions on syrian refugees he's ruled to be unconstitutional. the provisions on giving preference to other non-muslim religious minorities he's focussed on that and suggests constitutional problems. so he doesn't really deal with, as you know, it's a fairly lengthy executive order, he's

focussing on these provisions. the order itself is about seven pages in length, and, you know, as professor dershowitz mentioned, the judge does folk -- focus on the fact that we need uniform rule in this area. and this judge has said the only way to do that is by having one district court order upheld. >> do you expect to hear, will the judge, just in terms of hough thhow this works, is this the final order from the judge, or would possibly this weekend he write more? >> i'm not sure, anderson. things are happening pretty quickly here. i would have to check with my team. i'm not sure if this is his final order or if something more is coming out. >> david's got one more. >> the ruling comes down and says by 5:00 on monday you have to have materials in hand for

motion for preliminary injunction, can you explain the difference between a tro, the temporary restraining order you have now and the preliminary injunction you're seeking? >> i'm sorry, david, would you mind repeating that? is that from the order you're quoting from? >> yes, it's from the order, and it says the court orders, the court will schedule if requested and necessary following receipt of the parties' briefings, help us understand the difference between a tro and a preliminary injunction. >> i'm not sure not having that in front of me. possible what that's getting to, and maybe other folks there looking at it can weigh in. because the judge did not reach the merits of our overall motion. in other words, he's issuing a

temporary restraining order right now. he still has yet to rule ultimately on the merits, that may shallbe a scheduling order. >> i know you want to read the ruling, so we're going to let you do that. we appreciate your patience with us tonight both in the last hour and this hour. i know it's been a huge, busy week for you. thank you very much mr. attorney general. i want to go to renee marshal who has breaking news as well. >> reporter: i just got off the phone with one airline official who tells me that at the 9:00 hour there was a conference call between cbp and all of the major u.s. airlines and cbp informed the airlines that things were going back to business as usual prior to the executive order. this source also telling me that cbp told the airlines that they are in the process of reinstating those visas. this one airline telling me that

they are now going through their own process of starting to remove those travel alerts from their websites and reaching out to customers to let them know about this change. >> wow. this is huge. so. >> reporter: yeah. >> let's be clear about this. what you are hearing is that the people who had had their visas rescinded are, the visas that they currently have will be made valid again? >> reporter: what i'm hearing in from this individual that was on their conference call is that cbp told them that dthey are in the process of reinstating those visas. the guidance that they are receiving at this hour which was literally about 30 minutes ago is that things were going back to business as usual prior to that executive order, anderson. >> wow. so, again, because earlier, i mean, half an hour ago you and i were talking about whether if

the judge's order was upheld if this meant people had to go back and reapply for visa if, if this is true, if the source you spoke to, you know, accurately recounts it, it would sieeem th that would not be the case, assuming the judge's order is upheld. >> reporter: we don't know how long this process of reinstating is going to take. should you race to the airport tonight? i don't know, but i do know that the guidance is that they are actively working on this as we speak. so even the airline official i spoke to, everyone in shock, saying this is big, this is huge, because of course it all started with the seattle judge who made this all come to where we are now at this point where cbp is saying they are going to pull back on that. >> renee's going to stick around with us. >> here's what's really, i think, fascinating about this. we said in the earlier hour, the

closest analogy to this was when the attorney general of texas and other states went to court to block president obama's executive order, extendsing legal protection to undocumented immigrants who were the parents of legal citizens, it was called dapa. it was struck down. of it was upheld, and then the supreme court didn't act on it. so the order was killed. it is precisely that case that this judge cites in his argument that the immigration laws of the united states should be enforced vigorously and uniformly, it is that case that he cites as a precedent for applying a nationwide action, and it really underscores how the political combat has extendsed and how kind of raising these kinds of extendsing the battle field in 20 one direction can come back and bite you from the other side. >> if trump is watching, which we know he has ha bit of a history of watching, and he just

saw that report that the visas would be reinstated. i think that is going to infuriate him, and i think you are going to see a reaction of frustration from the white house, either from shawn spicer, the press secretary or from the president in terms of tweets. >> i can understand why he would be frustrated by it. >> let her finish. >> can he tell customs? no, no, no. we're hey nnot doing that. >> i think this will be a series of lessons that we are seeing this president have about what the limits of his power look like. and i don't think we quite know what it's going to be yet. but it will be an interesting weekend. >> donald trump, particularly from his quarters, but others have got and lot of praise and attention for having a large number of executive orders. there are some republicans concerned about the large number of executive orders, but in terms of getting things done,

appearing to get things done, appearing to be working and getting things started, it is the, the white house has been able to give that indication, this is showing the weakness on the executive orders. >> he's got lots and lots of executive orders and very few lawyers to help process all of this, he's not going to the justice department. he's having to do did internally, and i think he's handicapped. he's trying to act like a strong man. >> i think there are divided camps throughout the west wing. you have one group, the steves, where there's a limited window, a wide opening to push throug work they would like to see done. this executive order was part of that >> why do you think it's a limited window? >> because at some point these undersecretary jobs in the

cabinet will start to fill. we're a ways a way from that. at some point there will not be even whatever minor honeymoon he got, there still was a little bit of one u a. steven bannon and steven miller, one of the only people in that west wing with an actual policy vision. that is not what reince priebus is there to do. jared kushner is loosely defined in various ways. steven bannon is tmost importan voice on of policy. it is trump listening to a certain camp within his office, and that camp moving on its own. >> i want to bring a constitutional attorney in with us. ma paige, in terms of what president trump can actually tell customs and border protection, i mean, do we know?

>> well, customs is part of the executive. so if the president ordered them to do something, they would have to follow that order unless they did like a deputy attorney general yates and said i'm not going to follow that order. i was very impressed by the breadth of this particular order entered by the judge in washington. washington basically got everything they asked for. the judge found that every ground necessary to enter a tro was present in this case. and then went a step forward, didn't just stop things at the status quo, and that's normally what you have with a tro, it's a restraining order. everybody stop, i'm not going to let the government remove people, but i'm also not going to step in and tell the executive who to issue visas to. but it sounds like from the text of this order, this judge is basically telling the president that very thing. you cannot evaluate visas, and who comes into this country based upon your executive order. that's out the win die now. -- window now. it's going to be challenged by

the justice department and up to the ninth circuit. >> in terms of the timeline of that, going up to the ninth circuit, could that happen this weekend? >> it could, but i don't think we're finished in washington yet. as one of your guests noted, in the order, there's requests from the judge for additional briefing, additional arguments to be provided on monday. so i think we're going to have an additional hearing before a preliminary judgment is issued. now they could ask for an emergency stay, but if they're smart, they'll let the district court wade through the merits and issue another order before they take it up. >> professor dershowitz, if there's going to be another hearing before this judge on monday, but the reporting now from renee marshal is that customs and border protection is talking about reinstating the visas that were rescinded, does that mean -- and we may not know the answer to this, that people in between now and monday who had had their visas rescinded

could get on a plane and come to the united states? >> i think it does, and that's why the order will be challenged doesn't or tomorrow morning. i don't think anybody's going to wait until monday. it is an unlikely possibility, but it's possible, the president may say, look, i have an order of a massachusetts judge, i have an order of a washington judge, i'm going to follow the order of the massachusetts judge, and he can disobey the order of the washington judge, and then we have a real crisis, a real conflikt. we have a president refusing to obey an order of a federal district judge without appealing it. now for most presidents that is an unlikely scenario, for this president, i don't think we should take that off the table. it is a possibility that he makes a, i have a massachusetts judge, i'm simply not going to obey, and he will order the people administering this order to continue to administer it. then we would have a real crisis between the judicial and executive branches of the

government. >> professor dershowitz, to play that out, if there is that crisis as you call it, how does that crisis get resolved? is that something that the supreme court has to resolve? >> that's right. initially, the court of appeals, what will happen is the justice department would bring an emergency immediate order and you try to get a stay of the stay. and you'd have a first circuit opinion, a ninth circuit opinion, and ultimately, you would have to go to the single justice of the supreme court, or there have been cases where the supreme court, even over the weekend has convened by telephone, by factifax and issu order. remember bush versus gore, middle of the weekend, judge scalia issued a stay. i think this is going to be a busy weekend. >> four to four. >> yeah. >> stadavid gergen points out, t if it's four to four? >> then the order of the lower court prevails, but if you have

conflicti conflicting orders then we have a real crisis. >> 40u do yhow do you see this? >> the justice department had a really big win earlier today before they had this loss inwashingti in washington state. even though it's seven pages versus 21 pages they show their hand quite well. in washington, that constitutional bucket, the staeshment clause,e et cetera, that was the real crux. but on the flip side, the massachusetts said there's not even a property right for you to have a visa let alone retain a visa. there's no indication that travel ban was actually a religious discrimination act. so you have a conflict of

whether this ban is about national security or whether it's about discrimination, and that is for the supreme court to decide. >> mm-hm. >> fascinating. yes. >> my mom wanted me to go to law school, but i declined. so i'm not going to weigh in the discussion on the constitutionality. but i do want to go back to the point i maid in the last hour about the street. first of all, we have an american he roy, that's the person to general of washington. he stood up to bigotry and contested it. i don't think that would have happened if the tens of thousands of people had not turned out to airports, not marched in the streets, not gone to the seattle airport. >> what happens now? just in terms of polarization. now you have people who support this and overwhelmingly donald trump supporters -- >> that kind of inflammatory language. >> bigotry and racism? >>. [ talking simultaneously ] >> it's behind, it's behind the

order. >> whose visas are in play right now. there are still millions of other people who don't have a visa who if they wanted to come here would have to apply for a visa. as i understand it, the administration would still have some authority over those new visas. this say -- >> is that your understanding as well, that this is basically, would affect those who had the tens of thousands who had had their visas rescinded, not necessarily those who, a month from now want to apply for a visa to come to the united states? >>na would be the correct constitutional result. to distinguish between people who don't have visas, i think the massachusetts court is correct that there is no property right to get a visa, but once you have a visa, if you have a green card, if you're in the country, your stooulgsal status is very different. that's why it requires a constitutional analysis, and i'm not sure a preliminary

injunction against the entire statement by the president is going to be upheld by the ninth circuit. now the ninth circuit is a strange circuit. it has 26 active judges, incredibly divided. everything turns on the wheel, which three judges you get out of the wheel. you could easily get three who will uphold it. you can easily get three who will reverse it. so we're playing judicial roulette. >> how unique is it? how historic is it? how big is it? >> oh, it's very, it's not unique, but there haven't been more than a handful of cases like this where you have one judge giving a kind of, not only national, but global decision. this opinion applies, essentially, to the whole world, so this may go further than any other single judge's opinion, at least in my memory. >> and jeffrey lord, just as a trump supporter, i mean, you know, there's an awful lot of people who like donald trump's

executive order, who we interviewed, who felt that this makes them safer, this is exactly what donald trump was elected to do. >> exactly. >> and jonathan was talking about the street, there's also, you know, in terms of the sides being drawn, all the starker, this, what has just been done by a judge can make the sides be drawn. >> i can tell you in an instant what these people are thinking. i mean, they will listen to this entire discussion from all these distinguished legal folks who are distinguished. i mean, this is a serious discussion. the question that's going to be, what if something happens? while all these people are having all these arguments, what if there is another boston marathon, another san bernardino, another, what, you pick the attack. >> jeffrey -- >> then what happens. >> but i mean -- >> and i can only tell you, president trump will be there to say i told you so. >> but jeffrey, i do know, well, as you know, many of these

attacks, this ban would not prevent any of these attacks, what would this ban do with the san bernardino shooter? what would this ban do with the orlando pulse nightclub shooter? it would not have any difference in the outcome, of and i know there is a precise, really thoughtful way that you can vet individuals, without vetting their religion, the country they're coming from. i mean, there are hey rows wroe. >> when barack obama banned people from iraq. >> we want this administration to get it right. they're not getting it right. that's what this is about, jeffrey. >> and the attorney general said he's there to uphold the rule of law. that's a very important principle. >> i'm just struck that a weapon used against president obama has now been used to strike a blow against president trump. >> the same way that democrats

who eliminated the filibuster in the senate are now struggling with the consequences of that on appointments and you see the logic of the polarization and the shredding of any geneva convention in politics taking us to a point where you get more and more divided and more and more venues in which to fight this out. because the idea of this coming up through the states when democrats in congress lack the ability to stop it is an extension from what we saw from republicans under president obama. >> we have a system of checks and balances. but our system of checks and balances, our system of checks and balances is still very strong, even though the republicans control the senate and the house, and even though this judge is a republican, we still have the judiciary, with neither sword nor purse that can holiday up hold up an executive order and make the country think about the constitution. so i am very optimistic that

i mean, i think that's right. i point earlier, how president trump is about to see the limits of his power. what you have seen is a robust executive branch in the last couple of weeks. i think when you -- hearing trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail it's no different than what we've seen in the white house and his speeches leading up to the inauguration. about take the oil which is not legal as something he talked about in iraq and something he might revisit. so i think that this is going to be a bit of a bracing moment. the other point i would make, the administration kept describing this as something of a communication's failure in terms of defining what this was, when the executive order happened. it was not rolled out well. if this is struck down, the supreme court, it's going to be more than that. >> i want to thank everyone on the panel, everybody who has been giving us legal advice over the last two hours.

with when we come back, i think this is the first commercial break in two hours on this night that affects potentially millions. the story of just one little boy coming up and his family. the highly advanced audi a4, with class-leading horsepower. (vo) ahhhh, all right. all right flows downstream... both ways. all right says i dare, and sometimes i do. all right never gets lost-- it simply takes the scenic route.

all right is our most precious resource. and you can only find it in jamaica, the home of all right. hey, ready foyeah. big meeting? >>uh, hello!? a meeting? it's a big one. too bad. we are double booked: diarrhea and abdominal pain. why don't you start without me? oh. yeah. if you're living with frequent, unpredictable diarrhea and abdominal pain, you may have irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, or ibs-d. a condition that can be really frustrating. talk to your doctor about viberzi, a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage both diarrhea and abdominal pain at the same time. so you stay ahead of your symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have or may have had: pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse, long-lasting or severe constipation, or a blockage of your bowel or gallbladder. if you are taking viberzi, you should not take medicines that cause constipation.

the most common side effects of viberzi include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d... with viberzi. ...stop clicking around...travel sites to find a better price... the lowest prices on our hotels are always at hilton.com. so pay less and get more only at hilton.com. make sure it's ano make a intelligent one. ♪

the highly advanced audi a4, with available virtual cockpit. one judge's ruling with a potential to affect millions around the world. no denying what tonight could mean. right now we want to focus on a single story of a family trying to be, well, trying to be a family in these difficult times. our chief medical correspondent, dr. sanjay gupta has one family's story. they give you these little gas heaters. if you don't unclog it, by the time they got him, the plastic melted and fell on his face and feet. >> it was his first birthday, iraq, january 4, 2016. in an instant, the soft cartilage of his nose, lips and most of his face ravaged. the images are tough to see. >> you realize there's something different about him. it's really, really sad because

this kiddo owe they're rool i scared of him. >> the name means wounded heart. and his story is complicated. it's a story of being trapped. his family fleeing from isis to this refugee camp. and now trapped in the united states without his parents. you see, this woman is not his mother. she's not even a relative. she is simply a kind stranger. >> his parents, a world away. we tracked them down in northern iraq. >> it's really hard his father said. he's a little boy. he needs his parents. so what happened here? well, after the fire and burns, the british aid group arranged for he and his father to come to shriners hospital in boston for at the first of a series of

operations allowing him to take a bottle again. with his wife about to give birth back in iraq, he couldn't stay and begged adlai to watch after his son. >> at that point, they say to you, please take care of him. we'll be back. >> yes. so you know, they said we'll be back in four to six weeks the most because they weren't sure of the exact due date for his wife. six weeks go by, now we're at three months. >> when his little brother was born the day after the election. they decided to name their newborn son trump. that's right, trump. >> we want to show our appreciation to america for what they're doing for our boy. that's why we named him trump. then, despite being initially approved, in early january, their visas were revoked.

they were in iraq, 2-year-old dill a breen was in the united states. his father said they didn't give us visas because we thought we would go there and stay. we wanted to finish our son's treatment and return home. we reached out for comment to the state department and we were told we are not able to discuss the details of any advice a case snooim i'm establishing new vetting measures to keep radical islamic terrorists out of the united states of america. >> president trump likely made it impossible that his namesake, along with mom and dad, will travel to the united states any time soon. >> that's what we're afraid of is they have to wait 90 days which the baby doesn't have that. he needs his surgery as soon as possible. >> what's this sentiment or the emotion? are they angry? >> not really. just sad.

hopeless. they don't know what to do. >> you think there will be an exception made? >> we're praying for that. >> sanjay joins us. why were the visas denied in the first place? >> i think the issue really was they didn't have enough proof that they had ties in iraq and the concern was, are they going to come to the united states and basically stay there? that's what they were trying to prevent. they had the visas initially. 2-year-old boy gets the operation, now they can't come see him. they had the visas initially. even despite the fact that they're trying to visit their son. prose operatively. that can't happen right now. were the mother and father going to come when he was having the surgery. >> this is interesting. mother and father was going to come. mother was pregnant at the time. they could have come. they both had visas. trump, the baby you just met there, the younger brother would have been born in the united states, been a citizen.

they didn't do that. they had no intention of wanting to stay in the united states. again, why she stayed in iraq. this is the point they tried to make over and over, anderson. this is happening real-time. this boy is recovering with strangers in a different state in lansing, michigan. his operation was in boston. his family is in northern iraq. they got this little baby boy now, too, obviously they're trying to care for. they're going to go back on sunday, two days from today and make another appeal. i know there's a 90-day ban essentially. they're going to try to make themselves the exception to what is happening here. they've got to get here, the boy needs another operation. >> he does need another operation? >> he is going to need a series of operations. an operation is supposed to be done in january. that obviously did not happen. at some point what may happen is this woman that you saw in the piece, she's a nonrelative, may just have medical power of attorney and start basically

okaying the operations with the parents still being in iraq. they're trying to communicate as much as possible. it's a very untenable situation. hard to have predicted something like this would happen. but it happened at that exact time, anderson. >> we'll continue to follow it. sanjay, appreciate your story. time to hand things over to don lemon for cnn tonight. have a great weekend. this is cnn breaking news. here's the breaking news. a federal judge temporarily halting president trump's travel ban nationwide. this is cnn tonight. i'm don lemon. the ruling coming where bob ferguson says tonight, "no one is above the law. not even the president." it follows a week of protests at airports and across the country. this throws the immigration system into chaos again. let's get to cnn's jim acosta and r