be forgotten. their names are not only engraved on the national peace officers memorial wall, they are engraved on the fabric of america and in our hearts. to you, the survivors, i say that our thoughts and prayers are always with you. our resolve to go on is made stronger by knowing that while we have your backs, you have ours. you will always be advocates for your law enforcement family and we count on you to provide your prayers and your well wishes to us, as we go about performing our duty. the thin blue line will never be broken. and the memory of your loved ones will remain in our hearts forever. god bless you, the families of all of our heroes and may god bless the united states of america. thank you.

i now feel like the luckiest police officer in the history of this country, because it's my honor to introduce our next speaker. mr. president, it's a great privilege to honor and to have you here to honor the families of our fallen heroes. it has been a difficult time for law enforcement in our country, as you know. more officers are being targeted for violence, simply because of their uniform. in pledging to serve and protect, they willingly placed themselves in harm's way but now, all too often, harm is seeking them out and they find themselves in the crosshairs of individuals consumed with hatred for police and who are determined to kill them. mr. president, on the campaign trail, you often spoke of your support for law enforcement officers and you made a commitment to help us make america and our officers on the

beat safe again. in your first days of office, you began to deliver on that promise, demonstrating that you'll be a partner and not a critic of our nation's law enforcement officers. every officer needs a partner on the beat. mr. president, we see you as that partner in the years to come. we appreciate your leadership and we are so very grateful to have you with us here today. ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, please help me welcome the president of the united states, donald j. trump. [ applause ] >> thank you, everybody. wow, what a beautiful introduction. thank you, chuck. that was so nice. that was above and beyond. that's the way i'm going to be with you, too. and it's a great honor.

thank you very much. it's a great honor to address america's heroes on this most solemn occasion. words cannot express the depths of our gratitude, but i hope that our actions will show you how deeply we care and how strongly we feel about protecting those who protect us. america stands strong with our men and women in blue. believe me, we stand strong together. i want to recognize jim pasco, linda henney, chaplain wiggins and all of you and all you do to protect the law enforcement of this country and all of our communities. thank you very much.

thank you. thank you very much. as long as i'm president, you will always find an open door to the white house, and you've already found it. believe me. mr. vice president, cabinet secretaries and members of congress, we are gathered here today at the u.s. capitol to pay tribute to those brave law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty. on this police officers memorial day, we thank god for having blessed so many of us with such incredible heroes. and we pledge our solidarity with their families and loved ones and many of those great families and survivors are here with us today. and i would love for you to stand up. families and survivors.

what great, incredible people. and your loved ones are looking down on you right now, believe me, and they're very proud. thank you. thank you. thank you very much for being here. whatever you need, we are here for you and we are praying for you. as i look out today at this amazing assembly of police, detectives, marshalls and sheriffs, i want to make all of you remember and heed this promise. i will always support the incredible men and women of law enforcement as much as you have always supported me. and you did. big league.

your presence here reminds us all of what is at stake, on this sacred today of remembrance. each day during police week new names of fallen police officers are added to the national law enforcement memorial. this year, 394 brave souls joined the over 20,000 men and women who gave up their lives in the line of duty to protect us. the names of these heroes are not only carved into that wall, but carved into the hearts of the american people. and, by the way, the american people love you more than you will ever know. i can tell you that.

though your loved ones left us much too soon, the memory of their courage will live on forever. to see so many names together is to gain only the small glimpse of the depth america owes to those who protect our cities and police on our streets. to the families of the fallen to whom we owe that ultimate loyalty. so many people, even back here. please know that you do not grieve alone. though we cannot fathom the depths of your loss, nor fully appreciate the bond that forms in the precinct and between partners on the beat, your

sadne sadness is felt by all of us. every drop of blood spilled by our heroes in blue is a wound inflicted upon the whole country. and every heartache known by your families in law enforcement is a sorrow shared by the entire family of the american nation. no one asked these selfless men and women to enlist in this righteous cause, or to enroll as foot soldiers in the eternal struggle. they joined because their hearts were big and full of amazing courage. they joined because they cared so deeply for the innocent and helpless and forgotten. they put on the uniform because they believed, to the very core of their souls, that it was their mission in life to serve

and to protect. as the bible tells us, there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. the names and stories on that wall are each a testament to this pure and unselfish love. and that's what it is. pure and unselfish love. and it is our duty as a people and as a nation to prove worthy of their sacrifice. and that begins with showing our police the appreciation they have earned a thousand times over. living in new york, i gained a deep appreciation and lasting admiration for law enforcement.

thousands of people are living and enjoying life today, in new york, who otherwise would be gone. because our great police fought to bring safety to our streets and our communities. the entire world witnessed the heroism of new york's finest when they gave their lives on 9/11, i was there and sacrificed so much in that brutal, horrible aftermath. now, as president, my highest duty is to keep america safe. we will keep america safe. and included in safe means safe from crimes, safe from terrorism and safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

at the center of that duty is the requirement to ensure that our law enforcement personnel are given the tools and resources they need to do their job jobs and to come home to their families safely. you are the thin blue line between civilization and chaos. you coume from every community and walks of life. you are mothers and fathers and sons and daughters. you rush into unknown danger, risking your lives for people you never met, people you don't know, performing your duty under the most difficult of circumstances and often without any thanks at all. because you do not hear nearly

enough. i want you to know that patriotic americans of all backgrounds truly support and love our police. and a very sad thing is that many of today's politicians don't want to say that, don't want to talk about that, because it's not politically correct or they think it might hurt them with the voters. i will say it and i will talk about it, proudly. i will make it the personal priority of my administration to ensure that our police are finally treated fairly, with the honor and respect that they

deserve. to all americans watching this event today, next time you see a cop on the beat, take a moment to say two wonderful words which they so readily deserve. thank you. thank you. as you all know, much too well, we are living through an era in which our police have been subject to unfair tee famation and vilification and really you see what's going on. you see what's going on. even worse, hostility and violence. more officers were slain last year in ambushes than in any year in more than two decades,

include i including -- and that's so incredible to have to be speaking about this. but beloved officers killed in baton rouge, louisiana, in yet another murderous attack of law enforcement. and we have some of those incredible families and survivors with us. [ applause ] >> thank you. the attacks on our police are a stain on the very fabric of our society and you are entitled to leadership at the highest level that will draw a bright line in the sand. not a red line in the sand that isn't gone over, but a bright line in the sand. and we will protect you. that, i can tell you. and we will say enough is enough.

the attacks on our police must end and they must end right now. [ applause ] >> just to show you, by the way, how much i love our police, i said i'm going to need a hat because it's so windy out here today. when i got out here, i said there's no way i'm going to put on this hat. so this is for you, micah.

we must also end the reckless words of incitement that give rise to danger and give rise to violence. s it time to work with our cops, not against them, but to support them in making our streets safe. not to obstruct, which we're doing. we obstruct them. it is time for all americans, from all parties and beliefs, to join together in a simple go, to ensure that every child in america has a right to grow up in safety, security and peace. true social justice means a future where every child in every neighborhood can play outside without fear, can walk home safely from school and can live out the beautiful dreams that fill their heart. like you, micah.

freedom includes the right to be free. and i mean totally free from crime and from violence. ms13 is going to be gone from our streets very soon. believe me. when policing is reduced, it's often the poorest and most vulnerable americans who are the first to suffer. we have all seen the tragic rise in violence and crimes in many of our disadvantaged communities. we've seen the unbearable horror of the shortcomings in baltimore and shot chicago that have cut short so many lives and so many beautiful, beautiful dreams.

we cannot sand for such violence. we cannot tolerate such pain. we cannot, under any circumstances, any longer turn a blind eye to the suffering that's going on any longer. and we won't. it's time for a grateful nation to join hands with our police and with our sheriffs to build the bridges of cooperation and trust and to make our streets safer for every man, woman and child in america. and some day many of the young children you're protecting will decide that they, too, want to be police officers, that they, too, want to be sheriffs. they want to be cops. they want to be cops. they want to protect people, because they love people. and that's what they're going to

do. they're going to do it well. they're going to be great at t as we seek this better and brighter future, we do so in the memory of these brave, but gentle souls who were stolen from this world when they had so much left to share and to give. not only to us, but to their incredible families. among them were patrolman justin martin and sergeant tony bermidio killed last november. patrolman martin was on the beat less than a year and leaves a beautiful and loving mom and dad, randy and jane. thank you, tony and jane.

thank you. sergeant beminio leaves behind his wife, zoe and his wonderful children, cameron, haley and maddux. ashley guindon served one day. she swore her oath one day prior to her death. one day. she also served in the marines and today our thoughts are with her and her incredible mother, sharon. thank you, sharon. thank you, sharon. thank you. i also had the privilege to meet at the white house just a little while ago with representatives from the phoenix police

department, new jersey state troopers and the ostra county sheriff's departments mourning the deaths of two officers. i had a chance to spend time with his wife, kristin, and his 6-year-old son, micah, who has my hat and he's now with us. micah, stand up. kristen, please, stand up. great people.

[ applause ] >> i know he is so proud of you both. and thank you so much. thank you. we also remember those incredible heroes, who were so cruelly targeted for execution in dallas, texas, rushing in to a hail of gunfire, never to return. dallas police sergeant michael smith was a 27-year veteran of the dallas police. he was decorated, a law enforcement officer at the highest level. and even paid his own way to attend advanced training sessions. he leaves behind his cherished wife, heidi, and his loving daughters, victoria and carolyn. thank you. thank you very much. thank you.

shot and killed steven eric n - desirio. he was the chief of the kirkersville police department. he died responding to a hostage situation at a local nursing home. he leaves behind six children and his wife, who is expecting another child. our hearts break for the chief's family. we love you all. we love you all. [ applause ] >> thank you. every child in america who has lost a mom or a dad in the line of duty, i want you to know, your parents are american heroes. american heroes. they died keeping us safe. they are the pride of our

nation. and we will hold them in our hearts always and forever. [ applause ] their sacrifice will never, ever be forgotten. to everyone in the audience here today, i want you to know that my administration is determined, totally determined to restore law and order and justice for all americans and we're going to do it quickly. >> that is why i'm so proud to be here today, with attorney general jeff sessions and homeland security director john kelly, two men deeply committed to the rule of law, to the rank and file officers, who enforce it.

and bring the violent criminals to justice and bring them to justice quickly. thank you very much for being her here. >> very worried or sometimes worried, heavy heart. every single day, you've seen and heard things that no one else should ever have to see or hear. inflicting pain on the innocent. you've seen more of that more recently than ever before.

it's going to stop. you've watched great, great people suffer unthinkable harm and unthinkable death. the clarity to know the difference between good and evil, between right and wrong and between those who uphold our laws and those who so easily break them. we owe it to the fallen to act according to our best and highest ideals. we owe it to their memory to put truth before politics, justice before agendas and to put the safety and security of the american people above everything else. and we owe it to them to build a better future for all of

america's wonderful children. may today be the beginning of a new era of respect and appreciation for law enforcement. may the ceremony bring new hope to those in search of healing, harmony and peace. may americans learn from the example of the heroes we have lost and always remember to trust each other, work with each other and love each other. and, finally, and so importantly, may god bless you. may god bless our police. and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much, everybody.

[ applause ] >> i'm john king in washington. you're watching the president of the united states, leaving the stage. he just spoke at the national police officers memorial service here in washington. he will go down the steps with the vice president to participate, lay a flower on the wreath part of this annual service. we'll stay with the president as he does that solemn tribute. it's an annual event here in washington, the first for this president, of course, now in the second 100 days of his first year in office and the president giving a speech, speaking for more than 20 minutes. let's watch as the president here participate notice wreath-laying ceremony.

>> and you see the president and vice president greeting participants at the annual national police officers memorial service here in washington. among those in the crowd, the families of the fallen. this service, held every year to honor police officers killed across the country in the line

of duty. the president speaking just moments ago. he was on the schedule for five minutes. the president spoke for nearly 25 minutes, promising a law and order administration. also personally calling out and paying tribute to some of the families that he met this morning at the white house and that he met at this event. you see him now shaking hands as he leaves the stage. we're standing by for a very important federal court hearing, ninth circuit court of appeals. a rare day to get a camera inside a federal courtroom. three judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals will hear arguments whether they should leave in place a hawaii judge's order blocking the president's travel ban from taking effect or to see to the administration's argument that the ban was within the president's powers. see the people standing as the judge comes into the room here. not sure how much of a conversation we'll get to have. let's listen in the courtroom here and see what happens.

>> good morning. i'm judge gould. and it's a pleasure to be sitting here with my colleagues, judge hawkins. on my right.

submitted on briefs. also the calgerd case number 1535465 is submitted on briefs. so the first case for oral argument today is state of hawaii versus trump, which is 17-15589. that case is set for 30 minutes per side. and on the oral argument. please watch your time and try to sum up when the timer is yellow and stop when it's red. i will also add that the court is very well aware of the importance of this case. and we will add extra time, if

one of you feels you need to present your argument. and certainly once the time is up if we feel we need to go forward with any other argument on that. i'll also tell the group after that first case is argued, there will be a recess for about 20 minutes to permit all of those in the courtroom who would like to leave to exit the courtroom and thereafter, after that 20-minute recess, will continue with the other cases. we now turn to state of hawaii versus trump and solicitor general wahl may now proceed.

>> judge gould, and may it please the court. president of the united states is given broad authority to prevent aliens abroad from entering the country when it is in the nation's interest. first the district court applied the wrong legal standard, constitutional challenges to the exclusion of aliens abroad and section 2 c's temporary pause on six countries that shelter or sponsor terrorism readily satisfies that test. >> what's the difference practically between mandel, if there is a bad faith exception, and the lemon purpose test? >> i think it's that justice kennedy and justice alito indicated that whatever the scope of that exception, and no

court has ever applied it to find bad faith, not the supreme court or this court, but talking about an officer there, justice kennedy and alito said look, you have to have an affirmative showing of bad faith. if that's what you require for a one-off decision by an officer, you ought to require the strongest cleerksest showing where you're talking about the president of the united states and multiple members of his cabinet whose motives, i take it, have not been impugned. to say the commander of chief, head of the executive branch and multiple members of the cabinet acting pretext actually, you need to have a showing for that remarkable a holding and plaintiffs haven't put together the kind of record -- >> did you read that there is a bad faith exception? >> i do. this court read justice kennedy's concurrence in den to be controlling and said there's a bad faith exception. obviously didn't find bad faith but under this court's case law,

yes, that exception is there. >> i understand your position, it's that the den exception only applies to individual visa denials? >> no, i don't think so at all. i think den applies to the same full scope as mandel, to say challenges to the exclusion of aliens abroad, whether those exclusions are the congress, the president, statute or executive order, mandel has governed those kind of charges. and the difference between den is that den requires some affirmative showing of bad faith n this context i think it ought to be a really high one so it's not just a wide-ranging de novo inquiry. >> if we can conclude that the district court applied the wrong standard, the government's position is that it should be mandel, correct? >> that's right. >> shouldn't we send it back to the district court to apply mandel and to see if they can

make out an affirmative case? >> you could send it back, judge hawkins. plaintiffs haven't sought additional discovery here. we have a record and know what the statements were as a matter of fact. i think this court is as well placed as the district court to look at those statements and determine in the absence of testimony or credibility of determination, any of that, none of which went on below, are those enough to give us bad faith under den? >> no. i think in part that no one has set aside law basis of largely campaign remarks. >> it's dealing with a specific application, a standard to a

specific visa denial. and that's not what we have here at all. >> no. but, of course, judge paez, they applied it equally -- >> that's correct. >> broad policy determinations by the executive. i don't think the supreme court or any of the courts of appeals has ever tried to limit the mandel test to just a discretionary denial of visa by a counselor officer. and for the reason some members gave at the rehearing stage it wouldn't make much sense to say that a singular counselor officer get morse deference than the president of the united states in an executive order. >> in the context of this case, the executive order is an extremely broad order. we're not dealing with an individual one-off determination by an officer. >> it is a policy. that's what executive orders do. they don't deal with one-off denials. i don't know that it's an extremely broad policy.

congress and the previous executive designated these countries as those that sponsor and shelter terrorism. >> how many nationals does it apply to out of those countries? a large number. >> well, whatever the number of nationals who try to travel to the country and can't otherwise obtain waivers, we don't know yet, obviously, because we haven't been able to implement the order. but my point is the distinctions were made by congress and the previous administration, who took individuals with connections to these countries out of the visa waiver program. this administration, to be sure, said as a matter of policy, i'm not sure that's enough. i'm not sure if i'm getting reliable information from the government of these six countries so i'll put a brief pause on entry while i look at the vetting procedures subject to a pretty robust individualized waiver. i don't think it's a difference in kind from what the previous administration did.

>> can we step back a little bit? your brief, you start off by challenging the standing in hawaii. >> right. >> is that still a core argument for you in this case? >> yes. we've made the arguments in our briefs. but i think the easiest way to think about, if i were to boil down, judge paez -- >> standing at the district court level. >> we argued both in the district, extensively in the district court about whether they had article three injury and standing. if you look at the carde inform as case, judge paez, that's the road map. this court said correctly the denial of aliens abroad is generally not reviewable because they don't have any constitutional rights. u.s. citizens can attempt to argue that their own constitutional rights have been infringed by the denial of entry. the problem here is hawaii doesn't have any rights to claim under the establishment clause of the due process clause. so he's not raising his own

establishment clause right. he is raising his own due process clause right. if you think he has article iii injury he can raise his due process claim. the problem with that claim is that it fails on the merits because he doesn't have a protected liberty interest with respect to his mother-in-law. >> let me re-evaluate his claim in light of our hold iing in catholic league. >> it doesn't suggest or take any issue with the general rule that where you're claiming alleged discrimination on some basis like religion only the victims are punitive targets of that discrimination have standing to challenge it. this order is aimed at aliens abroad who themselves have no constitutional rights. i don't think the catholic league case argues any differently. >> his argument is that -- go ahead. >> his argument is that this is

against those of the islamic faith. that's his argument. and that this broad policy disparages in the same way that the residents of san francisco county felt disparaged when the board of supervisors adopted this resolution saying that the cardinal of that diocese was acting in a terrible and unamerican way by refusing to refer adoptees to same-sex couples. so what's the difference? >> so i think you have two key differences. one, that was explicitly religious speech. this is not. the order on its face has nothing to do with religion and operation doesn't distinguish on the basis of religion. that explicitly religious message was directed at the community of which plaintiffs were a member. this eo operates with respect to aliens abroad. plaintiffs try to get around that saying it sends a message and it sends a message to all muslims in america.

and i think the problem they have with that, and the d.c. circuit said this, if you take government conduct directed toward others and reframe it as a message directed generally to all people aware of the government conduct, you've both overturned and affect cases like valley forge and eviscerated on standing. this is at least two bridges beyond the catholic league case. >> isn't the doctor an imam, if i'm not mistaken, of his local -- >> yes. >> it's direct to him, isn't it? >> well, the suspension of entry is just on the nationalists of the listed countries. >> how does his mother-in-law fit into this? >> she is a national of one of the listed countries. she can apply for a waiver. based on what they alleged, it's exceedingly likely she would get one. >>s who howe does that affect his harm? >> his claims are unright. if you disagreed with us on that

and found he had standing then you turn to the merits and would say he's attempting to raise an establishment clause claim on behalf of someboy else. that's not properly before the court. he is raising his own due process claim but fails on the merits because no court has extended the due process right to in-laws and whatever process he wants this order more than gives it to him and his mother-in-law because there's no doubt about why, if she doesn't receive a waiver, which we think she's likely to, what the reason for that would be. it's on the face of the order itself. there's nothing more that we could tell you. that's why below they disavowed any desire for individualized hearings or the like because this is a categorical policy. there's no more process we can give them. they've never said what it would look like to inform them about what the reason for the the eo is. what they're really raising is a substantive challenge. they have two problems. one, they can't make out that case on the establishment clause side and, two, they never pleaded a claim below. they framed it only in --

>> she's not seeking an immigrant visa, correct? >> i believe she is seeking -- no. it's a nonimmigrant visa to visit. you're right, judge hawkins. >> she wouldn't fall within 1152 that relates to 1183 or whatever? >> that's right. and our position -- >> and the doctor is not the sponsor, correct? >> i believe it's his wife that is the sponsor. >> and is she the plaintiff? >> no, she is not a plaintiff. so i take your point, judge hawkins. just to say a word about the statute, to make clear, we think they operate, 1182 applies to entry by its terms. nothing in 1152, which deal wts issuance of immigrant visas limits in any way 1182 nor could it. it would raise serious constitutional problems if, for instance, it were to disable the president from suspending nationals from a particular

country, if he got intelligence that, let's say, someone troos was trying to bring a dirty bomb into the country. are we required to issue immigrant visas to the 30% of people affected by this order even though once they arrive at the borders we can keep them from entering under 1182-f. >> a practical effect, implementation of the pause or ban, however you want to phrase it, sort of precludes relief under 1152? >> yes. we told the fourth circuit the state department has always implemented suspensions under 1182-f by denying visas. otherwise, you would be letting people come to the country with visa ace travel document and once they got to the borders, you would be turning them away. state department has never read 1182 or 1152 to require that fruitless exercise. if you agree with them on their reading of 1152, it can't ground of current junction. at most, it would be an

injunction against the government that would require us to issue immigrant visas to people who wanted to come here even though once they arrived we could keep them from entering under 1182-f. we don't think that system would make a lot of sense. >> tom hanks at the airport, right? >> that's right. and that's why the state department has always said when you are denied a visa under 1152, it's only because you are validly suspended under 1182-f. that's the reason. but, again, if you disagreed with us on that, it would be the basis for a different injunction, one that i think would be practically pretty fruitless and harsh, but that would be the result. i don't think there's any way that you can read 1152 to limit the president's suspension of entry power under 1182-f. once you make that move, then there's no basis for the injunction. >> read them together. that is, you're dealing with a process. isn't that right? >> i think that's right. but the way to reconcile them, i

think, judge paez, is the way that the state department has, which is to say, look, 1152 governs the issuance of immigrant visas all the time in lots of other contexts. where you have 1182 suspension, we're not denying you on the basis of your nationality, but you're invalidly suspended. if you thought they conflicted i would still say 1182-f as the more specific would trump. because what you're talking about is the president making a specific finding with respect to these categories of aliens and suspending their entry. >> but 1152 was more recent. congress passed that one in '65? >> that's right. but then you have to get past the presumption of implied appeals. when congress passed that -- >> why is that an implied repeal? you read them together. >> well, because -- >> we're taught to reconcile statutes and read them together. >> i think it's pretty clear that what congress was doing was getting rid of the previous nationality quotas on immigrant

visas. it wasn't doing anything to limit the president's suspension power. i want to point out, by the way, if you take their argument seriously, i think they're committed to the view that under 1182-f even if the president got actionable intelligence tomorrow that, let's say, a libyan national were attempting to enter the country, but the president didn't know his identity, they would say the president can't suspend entry because that's a national iity >> if i could interject a question on the merits here, the executive order sets out national security justifications. but how is a court to know if, in fact, it's a muslim ban in the guise of national security

justification? >> judge gould, that's the nub of the case. mandel they said if you'll take the briefest peek behind the reason that the attorney general has given you'll see that it's not really why they denied him. they really denied him because he was a communist and wanted to come in and give lectures on communi communism. the court says we're not going to look behind this is rational basis review. is it a legitimate purpose on its face and it bona fide? does it -- in number of cases national basis review. the benefit of that standard as the court recognized in mandel, judge gould, is that it doesn't call on courts to make these sorts of determinations the second guessing of national security determinations, that they're sort of ill equipped to do. the flip side, of course, is

what the plaintiffs won in the washington case. they've asked for up to a year of discovery and up to 30 depositions of white house officials to find out what was in the heads and the motives of people framing this eo. subject, as judge paez said, the narrow bad faith in den. you would need official capacity statements that were unequivocal post inauguration to show that the president and members of his cabinet were acting in bad faith. i just don't think they could make that kind of remarkable showing here. >> let me ask the same question that my friend, robert king, asked you a week ago. has the president ever disavowed his campaign statements? has he ever stood up and said, i said before i wanted to ban all members of the islamic faith from entering the united states of america, i was wrong.

i've consulted with lawyers and i'm now addressing it simply to security needs. has he ever said anything approaching that? >> yes, judge hawkins, he has said several things. it's detailed in the briefs. part three, walks through the comments and shows that over time the president clarified that what he was talking about were islamic terrorist groups and the countries that shelter or sponsor them. and, over time, he and his advisers clarified what he was focused on were groups like isis and al qaeda. and, really, the one post inauguration statement they've got that we all know what that means, i would encourage the court to go back and look at the ceremony in which the president signed that executive order. >> the second one? >> that's the first one. they don't have anything on the second one. even if you say that's the first one and we'll carry that through -- >> statements that his surrogates have said the president is simply carrying out his campaign promises on this

issue. >> that's true, judge hawkins. during the campaign he clarified what he was talking about were territories and countries that congress and the previous administration had determined were dangerous and what he wanted to do was increase the vetting procedure. that's what he said three minutes before he signed the first order, sitting there next to the newly sworn secretary mattis. >> sounds like you argue that our approach to these statements should be an abusive discretionary or review. if you could read the statements good or bad, we should defer to the good. >> i think the value of the mandel standard is that courts don't start engaging this. if you do and for the reasons we've said in our briefs, we tink is a matter of why you shouldn' shouldn't. >> we would still say, look, the president clarified over time and in the face of ambiguity

about that, both respect for the court and brarchl would require not reading them. i think as the district court adhere in the light most hostile and least favorable to the president. >> we did, you know -- you're right, we did receive a number of briefs in this case, number of amicus briefs. and judge hawkins reminded me of something that caught my eye in one of the briefs. that pa pass muster under your judgment today? >> no, judge paez. >> facially legitimate. that's what you say. >> this case is not coramatsu. if it were, i would not be standing here and the united states would not be defending it. what counsel said below page 116, supplemental efforts of record, it might well be constitutional in other context where you didn't have statements

like this, that they were attributing impermissible motive. i think then you know you're not approaching coramatsu. i can't imagine that any court would say that -- >> how do you apply your -- how do you apply facially legitimate standard to an executive order like that? there was no reference to japanese in that executive order and look what happened. >> judge paez, i'm not familiar with all the ins and outs that have executive order. i can't imagine that the courts would say it survived the mandel standard. the point is just -- i think counsel here have implicitly recognized below that if some other president had done this without these statements, that this executive order would almost certainly be constitutional. and then what they're left with are the statements and they're saying, look, on its face, it's neutral. it doesn't operate on the basis of religion. we think the president made clear over time why he was really doing it and you should look behind it. that's a very different

situation from coramatsu. i don't think they've pointed to a single case either under mandel that says we have a law that isn't religious gerry mandering. set aside what we believe the subjective motivations of the president or advisers who adopted and crafted the policy. that's a really remarkable holding, judge paez. >> is the bad faith determination under den the same thing as a purpose determination under lemon? >> i think it's a little different in the sense, judge hawkins. look, it's one sentence in the justice kennedy concurrence. i don't want to read too much into it because no court has ever applied it to actually find bad faith. i think what he has in mind there is pretext. he cites the portion of mandel,

where they question what would happen if they put forward no justification at all. when the counselor officer either gives you no reason or gives you a reason that's obviously untrue on its face, pretext sort of finding, i think that's a little different from purpose. to say that the president and three members of his cabinet acted in bad faith pretextually and adopting an order and saying it's for national security purposes when it's not -- to go down that road you would need the strongest and clearest showing of bad faith. >> solicitor general wall, i would appreciate hearing a little more on the government's view on the statutory side of the case. and specifically what i have in mind is that there's an 1182, there's a need to find that entry would be detrimental to the united states. and so i have a question whether

there's an adequate finding of detrimentality to justify keeping everybody from a particular company out of the country, from a particular country out of the country and then i also have a question on making it a national origin ban. that seems to conflict with the 1985 statute. although, that was limited to immigrant visas. if you could touch on those issues, i appreciate it. >> judge gould, the fourth circuit had a number of questions about this, too. the president in sections 1d, e and f of the order makes clear what he's concerned about is really two things. one, the ties between terrorist groups and these six countries that were listed by congress in the previous administration and

the concern that the governments of those countries and the deteriorating conditions in places like iran and syria, may mean we're not getting reliable information. while i ascertain whether they're actually adequate. he wasn't saying i find they would be detrimental because they're dargeous or potential terrorists or anything like that. in the face of uncertainty about whether we're getting good information from their governments so that we can screen them out in the visa process, i'm going to put a temporary hold subject to the visa waiver. and i think under a mandel rational basis review but frankly under any legal standard, the president's detrimentality would easily survive. the second half of your question gets back a little bit to what judge hawkins and i were talking about. 1182 is entry.

1152-a is issuance of immigrant visas. the state department has always recognized those by saying that when the president suspends a group, even if in part on the basis of nationality that the reason for denial under 1152 is not the nationality but you're subject to a valid suspension. we're not giving travel documents to people who would arrive and then keep them from entering. if the court disagrees with us on that, i think at most, it would be the basis for an injunction that said for the 30% of aliens or so subject to this order who want immigrant visas, we would be required to give them the visas even though when they arrived we wouldn't have to allow them to enter the country because of the 1182-f suspension. district judge in the maryland case recognized that wouldn't be a sensible result. i think the state department's reading of these statutes are the far more sensible one. unless you say that th