display directly to the plaintiffs of some tangible in -- and they see participate in. this seems to be far removed from those cases like surrey and some of the others, so what is your best case that supports your establishment clause claim here? mr. jadwat: -- it was called the 10 commandments case. we will come back to that. i will give you a hypothetical. in this hypothetical, the president has a clear analyst

against a religious group. then it becomes clear to everybody that this is causing a national security issue to the u.s.. may the president act in any way against that group? >> i think it is a two-part answer your honor. >> a president has this against the group. the group presents a clear national defense risk, everybody agrees to that. maybe president -- may the president take action? no, it is not

permanently disqualifying in any circumstance. >> they could take action if there is a national security risk? >> i think the president could take action if it appeared to be reasonable, objective of server -- observer, that his primary purpose was not to -- candidate hadent and then issued this order, i gather you would not have any problems with that. candidate who did not make the same expressions as president trump did? >> yes, your honor. this same act could be cost

additional in some circumstances but not in others. is ifparticular question some other candidate had won the election, issued this executive order before us, i gather you would have no problem with that. is that right? the will to clarify hypothetical in one sense. i was saying that the candidate issued the order after consulting with agencies, not over the objections that agencies had that it would not serve a national security purpose? we have a order on its face. we can read this order. we have a candidate who won the , some candidate other than president trump, won the presidency and then chose to order withparticular

whatever counsel he took, whether it is his personal advisor, the secretary of state, whatever, he issued this executive order, do i understand that in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored? >> yes, your honor, i think in that case it could be constitutional. i think it is important to understand that this order, even taking all of the purpose out of it, -- >> you want to set aside the prescription of mandel. it says that an order such as this, when on its face is legitimate, becomes -- illegitimate because of campaign statements that were made by the candidate for president? >> not at all your honor. it seems to follow from that.

>> are you agreeing that the order is legitimate on his face? -- its face? >> is it legitimate on his face in your opinion? >> i don't think so, your honor, the order is completely unprecedented in our nation's history. >> the first order on anything is invalid. ? >> no, your honor. >> there has never been a multicountry band ordered by the president. even any months after the -- after 9/11. there is no restriction on nonimmigrant visas from these countries. didn't the previous administration issue orders that restricted immigration from these countries, plus iraq?

l they your honor, al did was require people to apply for visas. >> what about the non-visa program? of the people that would be coming from these countries, isn't that why they did it? >> i think the judgment and the brief of the national security officials goes into this with some official -- detail. the judgment was that people who were doing nationals -- dual countries -- these >> your problem with this order is that it is the first of its kind? >> no, your honor. >> what about what the order says? is that facially illegitimate?

the order, theat order says that these countries that you ignore the fact current national security officials have determined that it does not serve and national security purpose -- >> why don't you stick to the face of the order. you keep bringing in extraneous facts. you, is the is to face of this order legitimate? >> if you look at the face, if you look at the interface organizations, if you consider the same sources that were cited in this order, you would come up with a different list of countries, including non-muslim countries. >> what is wrong with the face of this order? you keep going off on tangents.

what is wrong with the face of this order? where does it go wrong? in the language of the order? >> what i am saying is that there is a logical problem with the order. if you try to apply the logic in the order, you would come up with a policy different than -- >> in the six countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, that provide havens for terrorism, that are basically not functioning government and some of these countries, they are high risks, people coming from most countries are determined to be high risks, that is what is stated in the order. --'re saying that that it there is something wrong with that? >> if you apply that reasoning, this is not the list of countries that you come up with. >> you argue that you one more countries covered? that is what is something you're

saying. >> if this order will legitimate , if it actually did what it said it was doing, it would do something different. >> that sounds like you are saying that the factual accuracy of the stated reasons matters. does the factual accuracy matter and to what degree? inaccurate that undermines the legitimacy? how do we analyze this? >> i think it would undermine the legitimacy of the order or does undermine the legitimacy of the order that it is factually inconsistent. >> you are saying that the president has to be correct in order for it to be facially legitimate? >> yes, facially. that it issaying

illegitimate because it is inconsistent because it doesn't include other countries that also fit into this category? >> and that some of the countries it does include are not -- >> where do you get the information that other countries i like this? i am talking -- we're trying to stick with the order. the order gives reason for national security and makes observations about six countries, that seem to pose a high risk of national security to the united states. why isn't that a reason to support an order to delay for 90 days -- you said that is irrational and inconsistent? >> i am saying that the orders do not actually support the conclusions of the order. can't read in the order to tell you that.

you just don't want to answer the question as to whether this order, on its face is legitimate. you say it should include other countries. that't know where you get from the face of the order. >> the question, under mandel is whether it is facially legitimate and bona fide. >> >> in the week adopted the , you thinke standard we win? >> there is a reason to extend mandel to this context. there is no rule that would

instruct the court to apply mandel. >> what applies? test -- is iteary the mccreary test? >> i think that would apply. >> that is what i thought. those are domestic cases you're talking about. >> they didn't deal with the establishment cause. it made clear that the people beyond the borders do not have constitutional rights. they made clear that that is the question of sovereignty. they made clear that we are going to accept the congress and the executives application of orders so long as they are bona fide and reasonable.

whenever the language of mandel is. they were directly facing the first amendment. they were in cases that involved a question about purpose. they weren't cases that involved a structural demand. court rejected a look to the purpose. that if there were any question about that, it is answered in justice kennedy's concurrence. >> you think we can read the current executive order and say that the order is so inherently inconsistent and so badly motivated that it was issued by the administration with the advice of secretary of state and homeland security and the department of national security in bad faith? no, i think what this court

is to do is to determine whether this was issued in bad faith by looking to the evidence in the case. is fardence in this case from the best piece of evidence. you are looking at the evidence of what the president said? >> i don't understand why. are,at is where you all you are like ships in the night. the government said it can't be considered what the president said -- >you say that we have to considr that. >> absolutely. if we cannot consider what the president said during the campaign, you lose. >> no, your honor. >> could you tell us why? ifearlier ice -- i asked you

a different candidate had one, it would have been a legitimate order. it are saying what is making illegitimate is president trump and it -- the statement of his intentions. is that right question mark -- right? >> no your honor. there are the statements of president trump and the third is other facts that are in the record that are not statements. one example of that would be what i have been faulted for mentioned -- mentioning several times. the fact that intelligence agencies said that this order it would note --

reduce terrorism in the united states. there is the fact that -- >> who makes the national security determination in this case? >> sorry? >> who makes the national security determination in this case? who makes that determination? >> i don't think that is the determination that needs to be made. >> it is the question i'm asking you. i want you to answer it. >> i want to be clear is what is the purpose of the order. x i did not ask you that. court has to, the make all of the determinations that decide the case, your honor. >> you're saying that the president of the united states make a national -- makes a national security determination? course, the president of

the united states does make national security determinations. >> it was not about who is president and who is not president, it is what happened and this particular case. when you look at mandel and you take it out of the facial part, when you consider that that is a opinion which justice kennedy and justice alito made -- it is a showing of bad faith. it goes back to the question, is that bad faith russian mark -- faith? what we have on this phase, we do have statements of the president on the campaign. we have statements -- the question is that enough? we can get into the business of whether or not we are spatially there. and having it alone

what has artie been established -- it cannot be sufficient. you can do anything in this country. this is not the first time in history that this has been tried. implicationhat the -- >> my follow-up question is going to be is if the president that makes this decision? your argument is that he is tainted by animist. is harsh feeling toward muslims? do you think that hate goes toward the attorney general, the homeland security director andy secretary of state? no, your honor. i think if you look at the case.

the attorney general and the director of homeland security gave a basis for the order. honor. your >> they most certainly did. >> i think what this case shows -- the sequence of the first executive order -- the way that the second executive order was said to relate to the executive order is that the policy which is at the center of the case -- >> the first question that i asked you was, does it continue all the way through? general and the director of homeland security secretary's say to the president that the current immigration policies place the country at a heightened risk of terrorist activity and it is imperative that we have a temporary pause and that is finishing the risk,

whydoesn't that than -- wouldn't that override any taint? question is what was the purpose of this policy? the policy was decided on while before that letter was ever signed. it was signed at the same day that the second policy was released. it could have been taken into account. people talk before they sent a formal letter? >> it is not in the record, your honor. >> you think the implication is supposed to be that the president didn't know that thought before he got the letter? is that what you would have us believe? >> no, your honor, i would have

you believe that the policy was decided on well before any consultation happened. if we take out of the campaign statements, let's say we disagree with you on that. if we excised his statements that you contend demonstrate animist before taking his oath of office, -- >> there is pre-election and postelection. >> before taking the oath of office. >> after taking the oath of office, he said when he was signing -- he said we all know what that means. he has also continued to publish on his website, his statement

calling for a total and complete ban on muslims entering the united states. >> how about his campaign website? >not the white house website. >> he does updated almost daily. it almost daily. >> could he have removed it? >> of question could have. -- of course he could have. >> not only has he not removed websitetement from the but he hasn't taken any other accepted -- action to repudiate. -- was't there yesterday it there yesterday? >> it was there in the last week or two. >> we are going to look at the signedat this person who

the order has. can we look at his college speeches? what about his speeches to businessman 20 years ago? are we going to look at those too? >> no, your honor. we're not giving you any of that evidence in this case. he mated to a business club in new york. to a business club in new york. >> those would have been much less probative then the statement t he made in the last two years. >> you are trying to figure out motive and intent and he said he must've been muslims and the time he says for clarification -- i am talking about the terrorists and the people from

isis and al qaeda. which one are we going to use? >> respectfully, your honor, that is not what he said. he said that islam hates us. he said we have a problem with muslims in the united states. >> he never mentioned muslim extremists or terrorists? >> sure. your honor, what he said was that i'm going to been muslims,. s. i think i interrupted you when you were answering -- trying to enter just came in -- answer judge keenan's question. fact thatt from the he has been republishing or publishing this statement -- call for banning muslims.

the makes statements about muslims in general. fact that he made that statement when he signed the order, saying we all know what that means. respectfully, your honor, we all know what that means -- >> what was he referring to when he said that? >> he read the title of the order and we all know what that means. >> what is the title of the order? >> protecting the united states from foreign terrorist entry. it meant that, there would have been no need to say we all know what that means, your honor. then i think there is the fact -- get to your best evidence. the fact that he put his order into place without consulting the agencies that

actually have expertise and knowledge in this area. >> he rescinded the bureaucracy? that is the constitutional crisis that he didn't consult with the bureaucracy? i bet a lot of the bureaucracy is going to resist. a president is not required to talk to bureaucracy. >> i think the fact that he did it is relevant here. the fact that he did it is relevant to the question of whether his purpose was a stated one. >> i want to talk to you about public interest. the district court said this. there are heightened security risks. they said that it did not want to second-guess the conclusion that national security interests would be served by the travel ban. statements, this

district judge was no fan of the order. he made two statements. he dealt with what i asked you about. the statement on the attorney general. when they say that is a problem -- we need a pause, that would diminish the risk. should that be done with -- dealt with? you deny an injunction. those people may have had their rights infringed upon. they would be stressful about it for 90 days verse the high security risk. shouldn't that be considered in the conversation? the winner case is that public interest alone can

justify denying an injunction. disagree to death -- with your characterization of the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. >> i was trying to cap slate that. -- encapsulate that. >> it is an extraordinary injury. >> for a. of 90 days. -- i'm not the fact saying that you have to agree with any of that. i'm asking -- did the district court talk about that the way you and i are talking about it? >> no, your honor. the district court has a constitutional violation. i want to point out that the violation -- the injury is severe. it is constitutional. >> i will give you that. >> i also want to point out that

the government had the opportunity not just in the district court but also in its application where it said it needed the extraordinary emergency relief of the state planning appeal to put an something. some piece of evidence. >> they put an statements -- in statements forom the attorney general. they were outlined just what i said. -- outlining just what i said. is that in the record? that statement signed the -- signed by the attorney general echoes the order. it doesn't provide any additional facts or evidence that we suggest that public interest is being served. is the president and

executive branch not entitled to some difference? we give it to congress, we that the secretary cabinet level people are not entitled to any difference on their conclusions? >> it can't violate the establishment clause. risk, canquestion of we fly on their assertions -- rely on their assertions? >> i don't read those letters that say there is a severe risk that would come from joining the order. >> this is the current immigration policies placed the country at a heightened risk of terrorist activity.

we have great cause that will immediately diminish this. that is what they said in the letter. there is a great risk, a temporary pause. the temporary pause will diminish that. that is what they presented. are they not entitled to any difference? >> they are entitled to deference. why would that be considered on where in lies the public interest? enlies the public interest? ini'll think it lies allowing a constitutional violation to continue. >> you have to talk about the interest on the other side. you can't just say that i will meet this conclusion. talk about them seriously.

>> i don't think there is enough on the other side to weigh against the fact that the district court found a clear violation of the establishment cause. the approach to deference that would allow us to sweep aside all of the facts that show the president's bad-faith purpose here to target a religion for condemnation, to denigrate -- >> the order does not target muslims. if he wants to been muslims, what percent of muslims are affected by that ban? >> a significant percentage. >> less than 10% worldwide? >> item have the number. well over 90% -- i don't have the number.

90% of the people affected are muslim. >> there are close to 2 billion muslims. what if you take my word for it that people affected by the ban -- less than 10% of all muslims, an'll think tha think that is effective ban on all muslims by the president? >> he said he wants to ban all muslims. last? long does the tent -- taint last? >> it will have to come up with some kind of test. i think that with respect to this order, the analysis set forth shows that this violent --

order violates the establishment clause. >> what happens 60 or 90 days down the road? in this administration and its attempt to protect terrorists. that -- did menstruation does things all the time, every day to change immigration policy to affect national security. >> what about the heightened the these sixg in countries? they require more information. more support for visas. becauset not be tainted the president doesn't like muslims? >> i think the question would be looking at the specific set -- >> i'm giving you hypotheticals.

is after thecal investigation, they step up the betting practices. -- vetting practices. that is the thoroughness of the investigation. could those investigations challenge that increased vilateolating the establishment clause? >> it is not a ban. >> stick with the hypothetical. >> yes, your honor. it depends on how the betting would operate -- vetting would operate. >> it is a lot more scrutiny. investigation

conducted, the question is just as the order appears ok on its face, is the motive behind it, does it cause the problem for you? that would also have to go to the application of the order. -- implication of the order. we have to spend more money and effort to get into the united states. >> that is not what they are saying. what if he repudiated them all? . >> i think that would be significant. whether it would change the result at all. result -- change the

does it change the result? >> does that change the result >? >> i think a simple repudiation would not change the result. >> what if he says he is sorry every day for a year? would that do it for you? if he said i repudiate that, you would say "too bad?" >> what the establishment clause prohibits is targeting and denigrating evolution. -- a religion. -- whention is reasonable people see what he is doing in total as achieving that effect? you're saying that he doesn't mean it when he says he is sorry? it is possible that

saying sorry is not enough. that is true in a lot of circumstances. theet me ask you about what judge action is here. dayropose this 90 suspension. the rest of it is still in place. there is a twofold purpose here. it is going to help the country. 90 days is not forever. it is going to be a study. what is preventing the government from doing that? even as we go right now? president --ts the how do you prevent the president from conducting a study outside

of the 90 days that seem to be consuming us about this 90 day ban. that is just three months. we don't want a country that is going to be safe for 90 days. we want a country that is going to be safe for years and years in the future. there is a whole business of reports and things being done. i don't understand how the president can be prohibited from doing those ongoing things, whether it is to be with travel bans. even though this is before us, how is that possible? >> there is nothing in the order that would prevent the government from presenting that. >> they say that they are under a court order not to do any of the studies. >> i don't completely understand the government's position.

i understand the government to be saying that they can't do this with respect to the six countries but with other countries in the world, they can. >> the president and his team have found these countries to present the highest national security risk. >> if there is a worldwide review of all vetting proc edures. i don't know how the government arrives at its conclusion. daysat is before us is 90 suspension. maybe there is an effect that can come from this. if we say that there is nothing wrong with that, you can do all of that other stuff. you can give reports. does hawaii court do that?

>> i think that is ultimately a question that is outside of my -- >> you understand that the hawaii order says that you can't do it. maybe going to jail in hawaii is nice. there are other provisions. there are several provisions. the lawyer a knowledge that to me. they have been doing what they are supposed to do. >> i think the question about the ongoing impact of the white in theill be clarified hawaii litigation. >> do you have any problem with the government that conducted the studies? >> no. >> they can study for all the

things they want to do. even if the hawaii court has a problem with it, you don't have a problem with it in terms of them doing everything else in this order. it is the 90 days we're talking about? >> yes, we have a problem with the been in section six as well. with respect to the study, we have no problem with the government proceeding with those studies. the government had all of the time under the first order to complete that study that was required in the first order. they didn't do it. -- notion >> those studies came forth with some compelling information, maybe even a bona fide reason, your case would be weaker from your perspective. >> that would change the analysis if there were facts like that in the record. there is not. if those studies came forward with some information suggesting

that this is a good idea to do what trump said or have the active, that doesn't matter to you anymore? >> no, your honor. don't disappear in the analysis but they -- their significance changes. >> would you change your significance? if they said we got the study and suggest that this is a good idea, either we can use it or not, we want to make this clear, we don't want to use this anymore? there is no taint, the order is fine? >you wouldn't say that. they said that you can't have the exact same action -- >> i was asking him if he agrees with justice souter in this case ?

>> i don't think he knows what the additional facts are. >> i'm trying to tell him. this type of approach makes sense from the studies. >> to bring it back, my understanding is what the studies may or may not say. >> we are a court of a third branch. and all the judiciary of the various judges in this country supervising and the executive is carrying out his office in the national security and the siding when taints are faded. who they are carried on to. don't we have some respect for the first branch and the second branch like mandell said? in the area of immigration?

>> we are not asking you to superintend every -- >> if he says sorry with sincerity, maybe it goes away. if it is without sincerity, we're not going to do it >? nature, -- thehe nature of any factual increase, it will turn on the back before the court. that is a decision. >> mandell excluded purpose. looking facially at the order, the order said, in the interest of national security, based on the fact that the six countries sponsor terrorism, provide havens for terrorism, we don't even have consulate operations in some of the countries.

these countries, because of the higher risk, we want 90 days to study the issue. >> that on his face, establishes religion. >> the approach you are taking wage at the -- weeds out of the problem. it is not consistent with the law. it would be to the point that the government wants to lead you at. the president could say tomorrow i dislike jews, i don't want them in the country. banning executive order israelis from the united states and say that it is because -- >> if you are right about the order in this case, i don't know where it stops because -- hereafter, if we all of a sudden increase the vetting in some of these countries where we sponsor terrorists, the argument will be the same one. come tohat wants to

this country and is delayed will say that this was because i muslim, not because of the national security. we will have the same debate, we will second question the base of the order. i don't know where it ends. we have to function in our three branches and get some respect to each branch. where it and'sre the question is where it starts at all. the president is not allowed to violate the establishment clause by invoking a national security reason the matter how potential it may appear to be. that is what is happening here. you don't have to address the question. >> the remedy would be that we have a different take on immigration policies because this is it acceptable, is that it -- isn't acceptable, is that

it? who would decide what that is? >> the president would and would congress. he tried to decided with a 90 day event. he thought that was in the interest of the country. they support him. you say there is more to it. faced with aent is national security risk, he doesn't take any steps to avoid it, then somebody who comes through that light betting or whatever want to call it and create a disaster and takes it is on thes, president. if he tries and stops this and something happens, some person falls through that and they are from countries that are just total chaos. that? responsible for

>> the person who does it is responsible for that. >> i'm talking about setting policy. >> the president is not allowed to set a policy that violates the establishment clause. court possible for invalidating -- the attorney general says there is a risk. i'm trying to do something about it. taint that we read to get to the motivation -- we say that can't be done. can thed by asking president do anything? dusty pause things for 90 days, who is responsible? >> it has been more than 90 days. responsible -- who is

responsible? >> they with the to the president and he was say that you didn't do what you should have done to take care of us and he would go i tried to. who is responsible? i think this is a good place to and. -- end. >> if we follow that line of reasoning, would we think differently? can we follow that reason? what if we lock them up and something bad happens? that follow that, does fall in every other thing we do? >> i think we have to defer when the president says what he will do. is a notion that the president would able to bar that, what would be the ?ationale for that shoulat

>> it is a fear he wants you to adopt. rather than the second-best argument. the government says that as long --the government would agree if the president says i want to bar jews because i think that judaism is an evil religion -- let's say. israelis noted allowed in the united states, i note that terrorist attacks are taking place in israel and they have infiltrated the state of -- thatnd on occasion would be facially legitimate and bona fide. on the government postulating. they weed out the bona fide problem.

>> the face of this order has more than that. >> one country and one justification. it is not very different. there is one paragraph for each country. three lines in this order. they say the same thing. there are terrorists in this country. there are problems in this country. that is enough on the government hospital. >> it was the predecessor administration that make that determination. flex the predecessor determination was that betting they are addressing any national security concerns. thisis is not something of current administration's administration -- admitted -- imagination. >> i don't think that the

determination made by the previous administration about this countries -- these countries -- they both touch on or address the same list of countries. there are different determinations. the previous administration found a risk in these seven countries. this administration. at this point, the fact that there is a heightened risk is legitimate. it is bona fide. at least under your standard because somebody else issued his order. you're saying that if somebody else issued his order, it would be all right. to come back to the hypothetical i was trying to play out. they could point to some determination made by previous administrations that terrorist attacks had happened in israel and that terrorists had infiltrated the country.

there is a whole list of countries in that state department report. many are non-muslim countries that have some history of terrorism and some concern about them being safe havens. all they had to say was i'm doing this for national security reasons. i have good national security reasons, that is it. notwithstanding and without regard to have clear -- how clear this was. how clear the effort to denigrate a religion might have been. that was say as far as the present goes, it would establish close of the meeting. -- clause of the meeting.

>> do you want to start with the hypothetical? >> i think that if the president came in and had a law that was neutral on its face of operation ended and operate on the basis of religion, i don't think he is right. if the resident came in and operated on the business of operation -- indicated that publicly. on the face of this order, there is also some justification that we are excluding jews from this country. does that present a violation? >> if he puts forth a rationale not connected to religion and that was supported by the order that was sufficient to -- >> it doesn't matter what the president says. you said that it only matters what the president does in his

official capacity? >> i don't want to press this too far. the qualifier at the end is very important. we can imagine that the president would do things in a official capacity. we can imagine he would say or do things that would bear on the order. here, we have one six word remark as he signed a statement looking at the title. i think the court doesn't need to press at that line. just three very brief things. we can't look behind at whether they saved it or not. -- say it or not. basise it survives review, mandel says you don't look behind it. >> on its face, it is legitimate.

statute that was alleged to a quick reference on the basis of illegitimacy. the court said we look at the facial legitimacy of the executive branch's rationale. there'sat whether that relationship to the conduct. and it survives that, that is mandel. they kept himf out because he is a communist. they could have kept mandel out. >> before we leave mandel, can i ask one last question on this? there is that other line of cases. the court says, it must be

exercised in a way consistent with the constitution. we do have to apply the constitution. if the constitutional doctrine imposes this test, we have one set of cases and then you have to apply the competition -- constitution. then we have your reading of mandel that says we cannot look at purpose. the constitutional role is that we cannot work with this purpose. this is all resolved very elegantly by the bona fide qualification in mandel. when the constitutional role that we are told to apply by cases like this -- mandel allows for a purpose inquiry under the bona fide formulation has construed in the controlling concurrence. what is wrong with my elegant solution? >> mandel has always been thought to apply to constitutional challenges, the

of elite oftry elite at the border where no constitutional rights. there are some aliens that have some rights under the statute of the constitution. we no longer think that it is just mandel. it can be something more. we are not saying the constitution doesn't apply. we are saying it applies under mandel. president is operating at the height of his power. it doesn't get anything more. >> i thought that the through line was -- it is neither the president nor congress that can do it because of some negative part of the constitution. it is not a youngstown question at all. i don't understand what it means to say that word. no one is arguing about this. >> it is saying that where the president is acting at the border to protect -- to protect our nation's security, because he is acting at the height of

his power, what the constitution requires is lower than what it requires in other contexts. the court goes on to say that you don't look behind when you inquire into subjective motivation. you look at why the ag kept him out. what it had to mean by that is this rational basis review. when counsel says other presidents could have done this, i think he is conceding it survive rational basis review. reasonable government access could have done this. we are all down to the statements and it is a question of the statement. even if you disagree with all of our arguments, they're just not formalhere to overcome a national security judgment of the president. >> the earlier question. doe 1 andthe john

three and two are seeking a german visas. immigrant visas. has a liveoe 1 claim. he does not have article freestanding or credential freestanding. seekingindividual nonimmigrant visa, was that one of the four the court found standing? mr. wall: the district court did not rely on the fourth. as he told the district court of the hearing, his spouse received the visa so the district court did not rely on paul harrison. they relied on the three does. one doe, it will be years. i don't think the plaintiff should be relying on her. john doe three's wife has gotten travel.nd she can only john doe one has a live claim .even if you disagree , the court has the narrow the injunction to the alleged injuries of john doe one.

a global injunction resting on one. reis court was clear that whe you have a plaintiff, no matter the nature or constitutional claim, if you find the claim on they all give in injunction to address their injuries. we have that with john doe one and his wife. it is not an injury that extends to everyone else in the country and everyone else at the borders. >> let me ask you about the numerical sweep. one of the things that is bothering me a little bit -- i gave you a number earlier. about 200 million people who are caught in this net when you add up the population of the six countries. we have a few examples of terrorist activity in the executive order, but not attributed to the national, to any of these 200 million people.

affect the legitimacy of the order when it has such an enormous sweep of 200 million people? examples that do not involve these 200 million? mr. wall: i don't think i was very clear. if you look at section 1d through f of the order, it is focused on the government of these countries. the president says in these pages, the countries governments are not, he says, i'm not sure they are giving us reliable information so i am not sure if i could screen out nationalists that may want to do was harm. it is not focused on the national source as it is the governments of these countries in relationship with them and whether we are getting reliable information in order to be able to screen their nationals. if you focus on those sections, that is really the basis for the

order. i think it is clearly not to trigger the president's determination under 11-82f. all the left with is their constitutional claim. that is what it all boils down to. i think for all the reasons i have given, they should not prevail on that but even if they did, we would be looking at a narrow injunction tailored to these plaintiffs that has caused irreparable injury. the last thing, if i could say this, the order before this court has been the subject of a heated and passionate political debate, but the precedent set by this case for this court's role in reviewing the president's gower at the borders will lon debate and this order and this constitutional

moment. in cases like this one, which is such intense feelings on both debate and this order and this constitutional moment. sides, we would respectfully submit it is all the more important to apply the usual rules and interpretation and injunctive relief. we respectfully cement that that debate should be where it belongs in the political arena and this injunction should be vacated. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wall. sides, we would respectfully thank you, counsel. i will ask to adjourn the court for the day. >> please rise and remain standing. this honorable court stays adjourned until tomorrow morning. god bless this united states and this honorable court. >> wrapping up for the first time, oral arguments being heard live from a federal court and the fourth circuit court oral argument on c-span. tonight in primetime, that will be at 8 p.m. eastern. an appeal of the

maryland district judge ruling blocking the revised travel ban. they come of the ninth circuit court of appeals in seattle will hear oral arguments on an the residence revised travel ban on the state of hawaii versus trump. blocking the president's been and halting the u.s. refugee program. the first stage over the revise d ban. like the fourth circuit, the ninth circuit also has the request to bear the audio live live next monday at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. just moments ago, the fourth circuit wrapping up oral argument in the appeal of the trump administration's revised travel ban. the marilyn's district court ruling which blocked the van. here is the oral argument in its entirety. >> i can ask you before you get started to clarify what you viewed