concerns. a decision is expected by late june. ad more of this article at nytimes.com. we'll have it airing tonight here on c-span at 9:00 p.m. eastern. more about the case from today's "washington journal." washington journal continues. los angeles times supreme court reporter joins us on the last day of arguments of the current term of the supreme court. set to be heard, trump versus hawaii. david savage, is there any reason why the court save this until the last day? >> it is a big deal. this case has gone through a series of cycles. this was the first controversy of his presidency. the travel ban came up the first week. it has gone through a series of iterations. the short answer, the third version came out in the fall. it was changed, struck down in

the night circuit. the supreme court agreed to hear it. they have a three-month time they agree to hear cases and then it is argued. they wanted to get this finally decided that they had to put it on in late april. host: what is the question being decided today? guest: there are two big arguments. one is that trump has overstepped his power under the immigration laws, and the law does not allow him to pick and choose countries and say no more immigrants from these countries. the challengers say this is about religious discrimination. word, this is a muslim ban. that is what the president wanted to do. this is a sanitized version. they say it is religious discrimination. those are the legal issues. host: what time is this expected to take place? guest: 10:00 to 11:00.

the supreme court is wonderful at sticking to the time. the supreme court starts at 10:00. a halfve each attorney hour to talk. then they call in end and that is it. host: we are getting the same day audio from the supreme court being released today. as soonbe on c-span.org as it is available. set us up for who is making the arguments, and who is representing the plaintiffs. there are two attorneys. appealtration law, the party goes first. the solicitor general, a former lawyerclerk, a very good , he is trump's solicitor general. defendsthe person who

the government before the supreme court. he is up for a half hour arguing why the ninth circuit was wrong. then this fellow who will be arguing for the challengers, he is an exceedingly capable lawyer. he was the acting solicitor general in the first obama term. he is representing the state of hawaii. he is representing all the challengers who say they should be struck down. host: hasn't the supreme court look at the travel ban? guest: i feel it we went through this last year. preliminary a injunction. the supreme court said we are going to act in a way -- they issued a short opinion and found a neat way to split the middle in a way i did not think you could. i think they did not want to way into soon, too much on one side

or the other. john roberts is inclined to find a middle way to decide cases. they allowed the travel ban to go into effect, except for people who had a bona fide relationship, which in english aant that you had to have close relationship. suppose a husband and wife the situation. the wife is in iran, the husband could say i want my wife to travel and be here and see me. or utah at a university. so they said we are going to exempt people who had a close .elationship with somebody the was a way to allow second travel ban to go into effect but also limit it. weres first two orders temporary. they were said, if your member

the rhetoric, we need to check the leading systems. we are suspicious about how good a job they are doing. we need 90 days. essentiallyder is permanent. the one that is being argued today, an argument that will be in effect indefinitely. the first were temporary. the supreme court in this non-decision split the middle allowed it to go into effect in part last year. host: the countries covered by the current iteration, iran, somalia, syria and yemen, north korea and venezuela. read them.glad you i try to keep them in mind. fivenk there's only majority muslim countries left. they threw in north korea. onlyenezuelan saying

applies to officials of the government. the fight is over the five majority muslim countries. host: as we talked to david savage about a busy day of the andeme court, republicans democrats -- i assume you're going to be making your way to hear the arguments. what will you be watching for? guest: i always listen to what justice kennedy is going to say. this looks like an ideological split. house wouldhe white likely prevail in this case in the book because immigration law heavily tilts in favor of the president and the federal government. the president can suspend the entry of any aliens, any class

of aliens for as long as he deems necessary if he thinks it would be detrimental. those provisions are so broad. even if these things were struck , thein the lower courts white house, the president would have a big advantage. i just want to see if that is true today. hour, whenhe first they will ask -- him. if justice kennedy or chief justice is belled third about the government's attorney does that is significant. i would bedes flip interested, whether there was any sign that they are not going to vote to uphold the travel ban. host: what is the government go first? guest: in the supreme court, if

you have lost in the lower courts you get to appeal to the supreme court and you are the appealing party. this is trump versus hawaii. hawaii was suing the trump administration. host: the last targets will be from the plaintiffs. guest: that is right. they are -- they are the respondents. they are basically saying the lower court got it right. host: taking your calls. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. when this band -- the first along, awhen it came lot of these refugees coming , indirectly or directly by

us yemen could look at libya. -- by us. yemen. look at libya. we have responsibility to take these people. that is my question. host: is that something the court decides? guest: they are not going to decide that. there is little about the refugee law in this case. it is good background to say what is our responsibility, but the supreme court is not ruling on the refugee issue. they have a well-founded fear of persecution. anyone who can seek asylum, this is a long part of the law, but it is the asylum provisions for refugees that are not this case. it is a different area of law. this is about immigrants, travelers. it is the father and mother who want to come to michigan to see

their son graduate. people who are travelers who want to come from iran or libya. it is immigrants and travelers. not refugees. host: is the core being asked if this is a muslim band? guest: yes. implicitly. that is what neal cassidy is going to say. the government may have tried to sanitize this and say we are only focusing -- but we know what this is about. candidate trump said he wanted a ban on muslims. that this has gone through several iterations. he is telling the justices don't be fooled. you ought to view it as an unconstitutional attempt to screen out muslims. host: line for democrats. go ahead. caller: they keep referring to

this as a muslim band. i thought these questions who don't have a u.s. embassy. would you identify these ,ountries that this applies to and what countries where we have a u.s. embassy? iran, libya, somalia, syria, yemen and north korea, then his way love -- venezuela. was part of the proclamation removed? correct. the administration's view is this is not a muslim than. if it were a muslim band, there are a lot of muslim countries. the administration's argument is that if you look at libya, syria, these are very troubled countries that may not have a good information system. we can't be confidence that they are doing a good job of screening out people, making

sure nobody has a terrorist connection gets into the question. host: line for independence. caller: good morning. my comment is immigration in this country is really messed up . we have no borders. illegal immigrants flow into our country. it is an invasion. i judgelike to know why in hawaii or california is more powerful than the president of the united states. .hose judges need to be removed they are overstepping their boundaries when they can step on the president. the only person who should be should walk on his edict be congress. i don't understand how these

democrat judges can do this. any time say they're not fakerats, they are republicans. i don't know. if we can't stop killers from coming into our country and turning us into sweden and germany and france where people are mowed down by vehicles, which did just happened in new york, we are done. argument is part of this case. the fourth question the government wants to weigh in on is this notion of a single district judge issuing a global injunction. this is taken off in the last .ecade under president obama the conservative groups would go to south texas and find a district judge who issued an order to stop president obama's

daca program. one judge, a couple plaintiffs whole countrythe saying it is on hold. now since president trump came and it seems to happen almost every week. a federal district judge in hawaii said this program is unconstitutional. a similar judge in maryland did the same and issued an order saying because this is an unconstitutional order, i'm issuing an order to say this entire program is suspended. controversial provision. the administration is trying to figure out how to stop it. they are actually asking the court to say something about that. if you get a case before you, and you have a half dozen plaintiffs who say i have family in iran, and this is unfair, if

you are the judge, hand down an order that applies to them. it is one of the secondary issues in this. it is a procedural issue. thelows from the complaint call or raise. how does one judge in hawaii in-depth for the whole country based on three plaintiffs? host: the los angeles times -- the case we are talking about him a trump versus hawaii. releaseda audio be .fter the arguments are done sometime this afternoon. we will have them available. we should note we will have those audio arguments on c-span at 9:00 tonight if you want to watch. taking your questions. 15 minutes left.

we read an article about a action foreferred childhood arrivals program. can you explain what that means for where we are in the legal debate over that? it sounds the same. three judges have issued orders saying president trump's decision to suspend the daca -- deferred of the action for childhood arrivals, in 2013t obama's order saying of all the illegal immigrants in the united states, we are not going to use our people whoo deport came here as children through no fault of their own. they are 20 years old now. tosident obama was going

allow them to get work permits and stay in the country. three district judges have said president trump suspended it without any legal basis. decisionhat is another that is going to be hard to prevail. we will see. , if president obama had decide thety to question, another president could say no, i am not going to. host: at what point we expect a decision on daca? guest: i don't know. the supreme court has not jumped into this right away. they could have. it is before the appeals court. the supreme court in the fall

will take it up. host: we are talking the next term. guest: yes. that is one that i thought congress would work out. a couple of months ago the presumption was they would come to some deal. the president said he wanted to maintain daca. i thought most people thought that was going to be worked out politically. you know how capitol hill is. sometimes things don't get worked out like they should. last a of arguments in the current term of the supreme court. then we will turn to decisions being handed down. when are we expecting the big this travel ban? guest: last week in june. me ofpreme court reminds final exams week. everyone knows when the last week -- all the term papers.

in thetices are involved majority -- you don't like what i did so you respond. most of the big cases, where they are really divided, you write an opinion any move on. the big cases end up going back-and-forth, adding almost inays that in the last week june, when the biggest cases of the term end up getting decided. host: and the biggest week for reporters like yourself. guest: it is feast or famine. it aside all of the big cases the same week. all of the big cases the same week. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- when question for

president trump, when he had a campaign with a muslim ban, he -- he justly say pointed out a specific country which is a travel problem .ountry i think it is true. there is a lot happening in this country. myself, didhy, even you even hear anything since president trump in the white there is no hearing about isis, anything happen in our country. within two years i never heard and seen anything like the isis

killings and bombings. did you hear it? i never heard anything. sure what the question was. there have not been isis incidents in the united states. .here were in the mideast -- you could have a very good argument over whether this border is necessary or effective to keep out terrorists . the plaintiffs say there are no examples of people coming from libya, getting into this country and committing terrorist acts. there is a good reason to be vigilant about screening people from countries like that. there is no isis incidents.

vans, terrorism incidents. host: on the idea of a muslim ban, are you expecting to hear the statement from the trump campaign when he first announced this? for a j. trump calling shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our countries representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. that was president trump on the campaign trail. is that going to come back? guest: those are in the briefs. of tweets ofries tweets the president has on this subject. the early part of this litigation he kept saying i'm not in favor of this watered-down then. i would like to go back to my stronger band. they cited the tweets saying he

actually wants a stronger bannon muslims than this wimpy proposal that his justice department has put forward. host: what are the last time tweets have been cited? guest: i do not know that has ever happened before. i suspect the justices don't want to go there. they don'twant to -- want to go down the road of saying we are going to use a candidate's campaign statements to reflect on his administration, his white house, and they don't want to get back in the business of saying all campaign statements are fodder .or interpreting laws i read, 11statement

months before the election, when he made that statement. that up,ebody brings someone will say do you think that is appropriate to way campaign statements as a way to decide constitutionality? good morning. i was >> we'll break away here we'll air the oral argue the tonight at 9:00 on that supreme court case here on c-span. we're taking you live next to the house chamber where there will be a joint meeting of congress. the house and senate sitting together to hear from french emmanuel macron.

.

the speaker: the joint meeting ill come to order. the chair appoints members of the committee on the part of the house to escort his excellency emmanuel macron into the chamber. the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers. the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta. the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi. the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer.

the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez. the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the gentlewoman from florida, mrs. murphy. and the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty. vice president pence: the president of the senate at the direction of the body appoints the following senators as members he of the committee on the part of the senate to escort his excellency emmanuel macron, the president of the french republic, into the house chamber. the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell. the senator from texas, mr. cornyn. the senator from missouri, mr. blunt. the senator from colorado, mr. gardner. the senator from tennessee, mr. corker. the senator from arkansas, mr. boozman. the senator from arkansas, mr. cotton. the senator from illinois, mr. durbin. the senator from washington,

mrs. murphy. the senator from vermont, mr. leahy. the senator from minnesota, ms. klobuchar. the senator from wisconsin, ms. baldwin. the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez. and the senator from delaware, mr. coons. the speaker: members of the escort committee will enter the chamber through the lobby doors.

asst. sergeant at arms: mr. speaker, the acting dean of the diplomatic corps.

asst. sergeant at arms: mr. speaker, the president's cabinet.

se sergeant at arms: the president of the french republic.