that appeals court, the u.s. circuit court for the 9th circuit, they set a deadline tonight.t for the government to make its legal filing to present its best case. then moments after that deadline passed, they announced that there will be a hearing tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. eastern time, 3:00 p.m. on the west coast, 6:00 p.m. on the east coast. that means this time tomorrow, we will likely know whether the refugee ban and the muslim ban is staying dead or if it might come back from beyond the grav

he dismissed this decision by the appeals court in seattle today, describing it as political and he saidin court, on twitter, stressing that he is confident that his administration will prevail in this case. meanwhile, the attorney general of washington, bob ferguson, washington is one of the two states that all this case against the us government in seattle, he called on the president to withdraw this executive order and vowed to continue to hold donald trump accountable to the us constitution. but this, make no mistake, is a considerable setback for the trump administration, bearing in mind that immigration and protecting the country against the threat of what donald trump called radical islamic terrorism were both centrepieces of his run for the office of president of the united states. we will have to leave it there. let's bring in the senior adviser at georgetown university, a global education institute in washington. he used to be a member of president george w. bush's senior staff. as for joining george w. bush's senior staff. as forjoining us. what do you make about the way donal

they said to the appeals court, look, a federal appeals court in boston, who has the same status in the federal courts as the judge in seattle, reached just the opposite conclusion. so they said that's another indication that this is not a slam dunk for the states. that's their argument. the appeals court is doing what you would expect it to do, which is to ask for the other side to respond first before it decides on this emergency stay. so, the appeals court hasn't tipped its hand yet. it's just saying we want to hear from both sides first. >> is it apples to apples when we think of what judge robart was taking into consideration as opposed to what the judge in boston was taking into consideration? because we've seen different suits pop up that are taking apart different aspects of the executive order, say specifically in one case the effectiveness of people with green cards. so, were they looking at the same type of challenges in the same way? >> not exactly, but fundamentally, the issue's the same -- does the president have the authority to do this, or is what he's doing unconstituti

he dismissed this decision by the appeals court in seattle today, describing it as "political" and he "see you in court", on twitter, stressing that he is confident that his administration will prevail in this case. meanwhile, the attorney general of washington state, bob ferguson, washington being one of two states that brought this case against the us government in seattle, he called on the president to withdraw this executive order and vowed to continue to hold donald trump accountable to the us constitution. but this, make no mistake, is a considerable setback for the trump administration, bearing in mind that immigration and protecting the country against the threat of what donald trump called "radical islamic terrorism" were both centrepieces of his run for the office of president of the united states. the director of the migration policy institute at new york university's school of law, who also works as a lawyer on us immigration at a federal and state level, joins us now. thanks for your time. how do you think this ruling might impact on people thinking of coming to the us? w

the federal appeals court in the united states has refused to reinstate president trump's ban on travellers unanimously declined to overturn a court ruling bya declined to overturn a court ruling by a judge in seattle who last week blocked parts of mr trump's executive order. correspondents say that the ruling will be referred to the supreme court. the president also immediately tweeted, in capitals, see you in court. the security of our nation is at stake. lots more on our website. you've been watching newsday. don't go away, i'll be back with more news shortly. and let's leave you with a bit of a change of pace. the heartwarming story of a cute baby antelope. its keepers are very pleased to say he is doing very well. he is being cared for in the north of england. the sad side of this is that his mother died while giving birth to him, so the keepers are looking after him. he is feeding well and growing very nicely. hello, there. there is a bit of wintry weather in our forecast over the next few days, but i think it will look quite unimpressive compared to what they have had across the othe

the appeals court has now scheduled oral arguments before the court via telephone tomorrow afternoon. that's the next step in this process we're talking about that and more with senator chris murray. senator, let's turn to the president's strong, i would call a pretty strong defense of vladimir putin when bill o'reilly said putin is a killer, the president came back and suggested there are killers here in the u.s. government as well. what do you think of that comparison between the united states and russia under putt? >> well, if vladimir putin really was pulling the strings of this administration, these are the things that president trump would say. i mean, that is a fairly outrageous defense of vladimir putin, to try to equate the fact that vladimir putin kills his political opponents with things that the united states has done to protect international security. i guess that's the threat i'm trying to imagine he's drawing between the terrorists we've killed and the political opponents that vladimir putin has killed. it's just a long -- it's in a long line ever really disturbing rema

a live statement on that breaking news within the last hour, that the federal appeals court within the to reinstate donald trump's controversial band, the highly controversial travel ban. —— ban. we have heard that donald trump tweeted see you in court, the security of our nation is at risk. as our guest said, this is not a bipartisan issue, but a legal one. we will of course monitor what happens next. you are watching live coverage reaction which is coming thick and fast and we will bring that to you here on tuesday. last month, president duterte of the philippines suspended his controversial campaign against illegal drugs in which more than 7500 people have been killed, many of them by the police. but the president has promised to continue the campaign, despite strong criticism from the united nations and human rights groups. president duterte remains very popular, as is his determination to fight crime. but as we report from manila, a growing number of filipinos are uneasy about the high human cost of his campaign. for these inhabitants, it is a good living. you need a strong stomac

the department of justice is appealing to the ninth circuit court of appeals. the d.o.j. asking for an emergency stay while the case goes through the court system. >> they're saying the harm to the public, if you will, is the process of judicial review. the harm is that the court intervened and issued a stay. you don't see that as harm, our constitutional process is supposed to let judicial review happen almost always. >> reporter: but the d.o.j. has made more substantive arguments. they argue this particular judge has wrongly decided to take away the president's right to protect the borders. they have also said they believe the federal judge in washington overstepped his bounds because his decision affected the entire nation. sara sidner. >> jacob, thank you for joining us at cnn in london. we know department of justice basically said defending president trump saying the travel ban is a lawful exercise of authority. how do you interpret those words? >> the department of justice is saying it's within the president's remit, that the president has the authority to decide wha

eastern to file its reply and the appeals court is going to act only after it has received all those fs. so that means monday night at the earliest for any further court action, alex? >> okay, pete, we have the administration this ban is constitutional. is that what the appeals court will look at? is that the deciding factor whether or not it's constitutionally correct? >> the immediate question before the appeals court is not that. the immediate question is should this judge's temporary order be allowed to remain in effect? >> i will say it's a tall order for the government to try to get it reversed because courts are reluctant. these sort of motions to stay a temporary restraining order which is what we have here, they're very seldom brought to appeals courts in the first place and they're disfavored on the appeals court and this litigation is at its very early stage. now the appeals court could say we can't decide that until we look at the merits and we look as to whether it's constitutional or illegal, the states argue both. they say this violates federal law in addition to the co

the appeals court is one step up. reviewing a decision made by the district court to suspend the immigration order. ride above that is the supreme court. whatever this appeals court decides, whether to uphold the ban 01’ decides, whether to uphold the ban or strike it down, basically they wa nt to or strike it down, basically they want to see if there is a preponderance of evidence it could be illegal, that can be reviewed all the way up to the supreme court. whoever loses, will probably do that, although the trump administration may want to wait and let it go back down to the district court. a supreme court ruling now would pretty much preclude any further legal action. thank you. a couple of other things. betsy devos has been confirmed as us education secretary. vice president mike pence had to intervene and resolve the matter because the senate vote was tied. this has never happened before in us history. this is when it happened. on this road the yeas and 50, the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the v

he can ask for a larger hearing of the same appeals court. other cases that will bubble up elsewhere, or he can go back to the trial court and fight this out on the substance thet, where actually administration will have a stronger case than it did originally. anna: thank you so much for your analysis this morning. we appreciate it. trump said cu and court. we will have to wait to find out which court he was talking about. if you are a bloomberg customer you can go to tv and watch everything we are covering here on bloomberg television. a 29 page report, that is a fascinating point. you can also contact the show. you can jump on. be gentle with it. we are there. be gentle. not too hard of a question. anna: we will be right back. this is bloomberg. ♪ manus: it is just gone 1:48 a.m. friday morning. all three equity markets in the united states made records yesterday. 38%, suv's grab market share. that is the big story behind these numbers. gaining market share in europe with an expanded lineup of suvs and upgraded models. this company over

the 9th circuit court of appeals is set to determine whether president trump's executive order on immigration remains effectively frozen, or whether it will resume. it began with a sweeping decision late friday when a federal district court judge in washington state issued a temporary restraining order blocking key provisions of the policy. for now, that decision lifts the travel ban imposed on seven mostly muslim countries, pending a final decision on its legality. in the wake of that ruling, president trump took to twitter to attack the federal judge's decision as well as his legitimacy, "the opinion of this so-called judge which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country is ridiculous and will be overturned." now we await a decision from the reliably liberal the 9th circuit court in san francisco, department of justice filed a brief asking that court to reinstate the president's policy. they argue that "the president has expansive constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security and immigration." well this could be the beginning of a constitutional showdown, ex

this travel ban, there was an outright rejection by the federal appeals court in the u.s. lk us through point by point what was said. >> it was a stinging received -- defeat, a slap in the face. everywhere that the court of appeals looked in this case, they found something that they had bones of contention with. the government essentially said the court had no business reviewing this case. it was unreviewable. president has the primacy over immigration and national security matters. the court is agreed, citing institutional for rental, notably, due process. this order was a complete violation of the fifth amendment of the constitution, that due process amendment which basically gives you a notice that people would be affected by this band notice of what's going to happen of them, and they noticed for hearing. the government argued the states who brought the suit have no standing to sue, meaning they have no right to bring this case. the court strongly backed it to differ, citing the fact that each of these states have universities in which their faculty and students and res

the ninth circuit -- which means the full appeals court, not a three-judge panel. the ninth circuit is so big that they don't have enbank with all judges, they have one possibility here that instead of going directly to the united states supreme court, they could ask for a random sample of 11 judges on the ninth circuit to hear the case and perhaps overturn what the three-judge panel did. certain on what the president just tweeted they are going to appeal the ruling, but the decision they have to make is are they going to appeal to the on bank panel or the supreme court. >> when the president tweeted see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake. what court is he talking about? >> it's up to his lawyers. the question is will they go to an on bank panel of the ninth circuit which means 11 judges of the court or go directly to the united states supreme court which will involve going first to justice anthony kennedy, who supervises the circuit and he could decide himself. but in high-profile cases, the judge who is representative for the circuit almost's ref

appeals court likely to rule on this? >> the ninth circuit court of appeal is not deciding whether president trump's order was constitutional or right in the national interest. they're deciding if the temporary restraining order should stand while the merriitsf the case are mitigated in the seattle courtroom. >> how possible is it that the u.s. appeals court will look through the comments made by donald trump, steve bannon and others over the years, including tweets, to determine the intent of muslim refugees and rule on the basis of that whether the travel ban suspension remains in place? >> judges are people. and they're not immune to political pressure. however, we hope that the judge s will be able to set that aside and base their decision on the law. the issue for them is whether or not the judge in seattle overstepped his bounds. now, eventually the court is going to have to decide whether the president who has power over immigration and national security was acting within his bounds by issuing this temporary ban fro

it's almost certain that the side that loses in that court case at the appeals court will almost certainlytake the court on to then want to take the court on to the supreme court, which, of course, has the final say in these matters. this is one step in the road probably this week, there will be more twists and turns to come. this isa more twists and turns to come. this is a ready important battle for president donald trump, tell us why. it is. what we're seeing now is the court defining the limits of his presidential authority. president trump of course is but one arm of the american government, there are three. congress is another and the judiciary is another. the judiciary doesn't make the laws in the us but what it does do is keep an eye on the other two, congress and the president, to ensure what they do doesn't breach the boundaries of the constitution. so that's really what's at stake here. whatever finally the courts decide in this case will give president trump a fairly clear picture of the limits of his power in other areas too. this is really about the next four yea rs, this is

starting with donald trump and his ban overturned again in the federal appeals court.ally are. what he is failing to realise is just how important it is for many democratic societies to have a separation of powers. those who make the law and those who enforce it, and that the president who is running the seem ’ seem to f seem to understand % seem to understand that he to have some challenge, and needs to have some challenge, and this is a part of the process. i am just guessing that he would be successful —— he would not be successful. mentioning the supreme court... it hasn't been confirmed... it depends who is sitting on the day, lots of variables. judicial reeva meant to be there as a balance, they are doing theirjob very well. when the executive ran to start criticising the judiciary for essentially doing its job start criticising the judiciary for essentially doing itsjob it start criticising the judiciary for essentially doing its job it is very dangerous, you are supposed to applaud that that is something that any responsible leader should be celebrating. he doe

if the president and the white house lost that they would appeal the supreme court. interestingly there was some speculation if the other side lost, if the states lost they might not appeal this one. they might appeal the order in boston because it was more narrowly considered. so they might have better likelihood of overturning the appeal or appealing the institution of the ban that happened in new england rather than the one here. this one looks like it has gone in favor of the states. there is a business issue here too. we had over a hundred companies here in california, sill convalley, technology companies in particular siding with the washington state court saying this ban was bad for business. it was bad for the economy. it was going to hurt the economy of the united states and they wanted this ban overturned. so this is a very big business issue. this isn't just about international human rights. now this is -- the ball is in the court of the white house and the trump administration to see if they want to appeal this decision that took place moments ago here in

the ninth circuit court of appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makesther decisions on the motion. we'll keep you updated on this throughout the morning. >> there are many workers coming from muslim countries, especially for domestic workers. there are many of them. they might have families. they might have friends in the u.s. and the workers, they're part of the community. i think it's our responsibility to fight for their rights. >> you see in the upper right-hand corner of the screen the po terotest are stretching the white house to hong kong. this rally against the ban was held outside the american cons sue lat there for from the seven middle eastern countries dire directly affected by the pan. held in lon dadon, paris, sydne. >> for more on the international reaction to the travel ban, bring in cnn correspondent. what are you hearing? >> reporter: really some of the reaction in this part of the world, it really is confusion and uncertainty. people in those countries that were impacted and also in the middle east and the arab world last week waking

whatever the appeal court rules, the case is likely to end up at the u.s. supreme court.nne-marie. >> hena daniels here in new york. thank you so much, hena. >>> elon musk's spacex is nearly one of 100 companies that have joined the companies in the presidential travel ban. tesla is in south africa. john blackstone has more. >> reporter: some of the biggest names in thnology are among the 97 companies that joined the brief to the court of appeals, forcefully opposing the travel and immigration ban. they argue, the order makes it more difficult and expensive for u.s. companies to recruit, hire and retain, some of the world's best employees. of box inged, the company that signed on to the brief. >> some of our founding employees come from different countries, some of which are actually on the ban list so that has a meaningful impact on our culture. >> reporter: the brief notes immigrants or their children founded more than 200 companies on the fortune 500 list, including apple, kraft, ford, general electric, at&t, google, mcdonald's, boeing and disney. and the brief says, i

those were critical in the 9th district court of appeals upholding the prohibition. tinue to go to the u.s. supreme court without altering those orders in the my judgment, unanimously >> you have been on the other side of this, what do you thinking is going on behind the scenes? first, we heard the president say, we're not going to appeal to the supreme court. then we hear the white house say, wait, hold on we may very well do this. what's gone right now >> i think you got competing fact ions, my guess is the lawyers are saying this is not the case you want to go to the supreme court on. the administration acted hastily, they didn't get expert testimony, classified information that would identify these seven countries as somehow greater security risk than others, especially when common knowledge is known that countries left off the list, egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, they have had nationals come here and kill us. the countries on the list have had none. this is not the kind of case to go to the court and ask, what's debt about letting people in from countries who hav

we have breaking news in the past few minutes, an appeals court refused to reinstate donald trump's immigrationrder. >> that is after a lower court ruled that that ban should be put on hold. the order temporarily stopped immigration from seven muslim majority countries. it also temporarily halts the refugee program. the white house has not yet commented on the ruling, but we're expecting a special report at any moment now. >>> we saw the chaos at airports across the country, including here at philadelphia international as people were trying to come in from those countries and were held by customs enforcement. some of them sent back to their home countries. we followed one family's ordeal. >> we followed them, they flew here from syria. they arrived at philadelphia international and was sent back to syria and then recently returned back here at philadelphia international. we were focusing on that couple, but there are many families who are dealing with the exact same issue. >> we heard those arguments, they were oral arguments over a telephone line earlier in the week before the appeals panel. t

early this morning, the ninth circuit court of appeals-- which covers the western united states-- upheld friday's temporary restraining order by a federal judge in seattle. the courts have halted enforcement of the 90 day ban on citizens from iran, iraq, libya, somalia, syria, and yemen from entering the u.s. the january 27 trump executive order also banned syrian refugees from entering the u.s. for 120 days. but the court order by judge james robart, a george w. bush appointee, applies nationwide and has stopped customs and border control agents from refusing admittance to immigrants and refugees with proper visas. it has also cleared the way for visa holders to board flights from overseas bound for the u.s. iraqi fuad sharef, who worked for a u-s contractor in iraq, took off from istanbul, turkey, today, with his wife and three children, en route to nashville. >> yeah, we are very excited. we are very happy. we are...finally, we have been cleared. we are allowed to enter the united states. >> sreenivasan: with the ban blocked, cleared citizens from the affected countries have begun arr

but the appeals court in this decision said, yes, while courts do give denchance to presidents, their decision are not unreviewable, and then it proceeded to review all the arguments against the travel ban that were being made by two states, washington and minnesota. and it looked at those arguments and the arguments were many constitutional arguments, including due process and in fact the religious ban amounted to rdiscrimination, and it concluded that there was no evidence that the government-- a strong likelihood that it would prevail on the merits. this case now will go back to decide i i the government could try to take it to the supreme court, but at this point, scott, i think that's unlikely, while the lower courts consider its legality. >> pelley: jan crawford with the breaking news tonight. and so the president's travel ban will remain on hold. it is probably likely that the administration will appeal this to the speak, but we just received a statement fromlet jums, saying that, jups saying that it is reading the judges' orders and weighing its options. in other news tonight,

a full appeal is due this week but it could end up at the supreme court.. there is a difference between being bold and being rash. when you put out an order that you have not worked with businesses or your professionals in the security order when you have done it, i don't think it is the surprise there will be court challenges. despite the noisy protest outside president trump's florida home, the polls suggest these voices are in the minority and more americans support the travel ban. when he returns to the white house this week, the president will be determined to press on with his signature policy but he is finding out the hard way there are checks and balances to his authority. the courts are even now defining the limits of his presidential power. now, with news of a win for wales in the six nations and all the rest of the sport, here'sjohn watson at the bbc sport centre. wales rounded off the opening weekend of the rugby 6—nation championship with a 37—3 victory over italy. the scoreline in the end was comfortable. the italian national anthem asks wher

the government said to the appeals court, put this on hold. the president has absolute national interest. he controls immigration, not the courts. and there's no constitutional right held by people who are immigrants who come here. they don't have constitutional rights to come to the u.s. but what the appeals court did and said, we're not going to act on this immediately. we're going to order the states to file a response. their response is due this afternoon at about midnight eastern time. then tomorrow the government has to respond to that by about 6:00 p.m. eastern time. so we're not going to get any further court action until at the very earliest tomorrow evening. >> this is the way it's supposed to work. checks and balances. not one part of power. this is really confusing for people, and people whose lives are at stake right now. >> the president says it's not supposed to work this way. the president says he has the sole authority to act here. but that's the way it normally proceeds. this court has issued what's called a temporary restrain

with that i'm going to turn to he will summarize essentially what the ninth circuit court of appeals d here today. then we will have a few words from colleen. >> thank you. what we argue to the court yesterday was it is the role of the court to say what the law is and to serve as a check on the executive branch, and that is what the court has done and this will reason, careful, thoughtful opinion. be considered all the arguments and rejected them. it is important to recognize the real impact this is already having on people's lives. we're hearing from people all over the country about what a difference this is made and we are thrilled for that. i want to thank attorney general ferguson for having the braver is -- for having the bravery to bring is the case in the first place in offering for us to do all this. i think the governor and the peak of the state for all their support in bringing this case. most especially want to thank the people across the office. people in my office like japan, kelly would -- like ann, kelly, i' going to forget people -- was the attorney general. for winni

says it is denying the appeals court says it is denying the justice the appeals court says ittice department's request to restore mr trump‘s immigration ban. clearly a long legal battle ahead for the president on that. the battle for the french presidency is entering a new phase — the far—right leader marine le pen launches her campaign today, and looks like facing a serious challenge from the newcomer emmanuel macron. the former economy minister — a populist, pro—european left—winger — has made his first major speech and has been rising fast in the polls. the bbc‘s tim allman reports. he's young, he's handsome and, if things go his way, he could be the next president of france. emmanuel macron attracted huge crowds at this rally in lyon. a former socialist finance minister, now an independent, he vowed to unite the nation. this is one of the most open presidential elections in decades. francois fillon has had to with —— has had calls to withdraw. likely to be waiting in the second round of the vote is marine le pen from the national front. she was also in lyon, were she will

the headlines at 103m: a setback for donald trump as an appeal court denies his emergency appeal against a suspension of his controversial travel ban on people from seven countries. a scathing report into the way britain's train system is organised — mps says it lets down passengers and isn't fit for purpose. the race to become france's new president heats up as a former economy minister launches his campaign. national front leader marine le pen will begin her bid later. a father from scarborough who has motor neurone disease becomes the first person to use a computer—generated voice with a regional accent in a bid to keep his identity. it's amazing to know now that my girls, lilly and poppy, and my wife will be able to talk to me and hear my voice back. and a bbc investigation exposes a secret network of wildlife traffickers selling baby chimpanzees. good morning, and welcome to bbc news. in the last hour, a us federal appeals court has rejected a request from donald trump's administration to immediately reinstate his controversial order banning immigration from seven specified countrie

but whichever side loses in the appeals court can ask for an emergency order from the u.s. supreme court. the justices would act quickly but it could take another day or so. alex? >> pete williams, thank you for that. >>> meantime, the state department complied with judge robart's rule iing reversing th visa actions. tweeting at 7:59 a.m., when a country is no longer able to say who can and cannot come in and out, especially for reasons of safety and security, big trouble. seven minutes later he tweeted, interesting that certain middle eastern countries agree with the ban. they know if certain people are allowed in, it's death and destruction. then sixth minutes at 8:12 a.m., the opinion of the so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and wl be overturned. the president's undermining of the judge less than a week after saying the acting attorney general had betrayed the department of justice drew condemnations with some like republican senator ben sas coming to the confirmation of the george bush nominee. >> we don't have

an appeals court wraps of the hearing on the trump travel ban. just

the ninth circuit court of appeals will hear arguments on whether the ban is lawful. shington state in minnesota which to trump last week said yesterday presuming the ban would unleash chaos again. the matter could likely and prefer the supreme court. the senate does today on the nomination of f. c. devos for education secretary. senators pulled an all nighter on the floor in opposition to devos. as an outcome that they are one vote shy of defeating her. mike pence is set to cast the tie-breaking vote. disney and general motors on the earnings calendar today. disney reports after the close. investors want to know more about bob acres retirement plan. we will hear from general motors before they open today. for the could result to cap a record year for the largest u.s. auto maker. as for stock futures, we see a paris across-the-board. s&p up for in half, nasdaq up 10. that's a look at what's happening now. nicole: republican lawmakers move ahead on their efforts to repeal obamacare. president trump said the replacement plan could take until next year. james rosen in was

so president trump nominating federal appeals court judge neil gorsuch of colorado for the u.s. supreme court. i'm scott pelley for some of you in the west, the cbs evening news is coming right up. >> for news 24 hours a day, two to captioning sponsored by cbs >> the supreme court decision. today i am keeping -- to the american people. by nominating judge neil gorsuch. >> i pledge and confirmly do all oh, my powers permit to be a faithful servant to the constitution and laws to this great country. >> pelley: also tonight, the firing and the firing back of the president's decision to fire attorney general is shameful. >> and illegally order and she is not going to execute it, that clearly is a betrayal. >> pelley: afire destroyed a mosque in texas, people of all faiths have opened their

the appeals court will rule.e that judgement is up to them, but they have shown that they want to move forward very quickly on this, so i think thejudgement could come within days, potentially even hours, after they've heard from the two sides. it's almost certain that the side that loses in that court case at the appeals court will almost certainly then want to take the case on to the supreme court, which of course has the final say in these matters. so this is one step in the road, probably this week. there will be more twists and turns to come. this is a ready important battle for president donald trump. tell us why. it is. really, what we're seeing now is the courts defining the limits of his presidential authority. president trump, of course, is but one arm of the american government. there are three. congress is also another arm, and then the judiciary is another arm. now, the judiciary doesn't make the laws in the us, but what it does do is keep an eye on the other two, congress and the president, to ensur

. >>> appeals court compromise. the white house signaling a possible fallback position in its brief to the appeals court on that travel ban. only hours before the three-judge panel hears arguments from both sides, pete williams will have details. just now the president arguing what's at stake. >> if you remember, isis said, we are going to infiltrate the united states and other countries through the migration. and then we're not allowed to be tough on the people coming in? explain that one. so, we'll see what happens. we have a big court case. we're well represented and we'll see what happens. >> is it going to go to the supreme court, you think? >> it could. we'll see. it's common sense. you know, sop things are law, and i'm all in favor of that, and some things are common sense. this is common sense. >>> good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. we're expecting an historic senate roll call at any minute. this will be the first test of the democratic minority's ability to block a trump cabinet nominee.

country are allowed in, not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country. >> reporter: the appeals court will hear arguments tomorrow afternoon, but this is just one of many lawsuits challenging the ban. on friday a federal judge in boston upheld the ban, setting up a possible showdown in the supreme court. >> pelley: jan crawford, thanks. the appeals court received a brief against the ban filed by nearly 100 of america's best-known technology companies. john blackstone tells us that 60% of highly skilled work centers sill condition valley were born outside the u.s. >> reporter: some of the biggest names in technology are among the 97 companies that joined the brief to the court of appeals, forcefully opposing the travel and immigration ban. they argue the order makes it more difficult and expensive for u.s. companies to recruit, hire and retain some of the world's best employees. it disrupts ongoing business operations. >> america has been at the leading edge of so many innovative markets and trendings because we're able to working -- work on a global scale. >> reporter: aaron levie is

and so we believe -- chris: but, sir, a federal court of appeals -- >> we believe the judge made the wrong decision, the boston court made the right decision. we're going to continue to use all legal means at our disposal to stay that order and move forward to take the steps necessary to protect our country. chris: but the federal court of appeals didn't seem persuaded by that, and the judge in the case says that there is not a pressing safety issue. he notes the fact that there hasn't been a single terrorist act committed by anyone from any of the seven countries on the president's travel ban since 9/11. not one. neither the lower court, nor the appeals court seem to be persuaded, sir. >> well, i think that's why the judge's decision in the washington court is so frustrating. and, of course, it's different from the judge's decision at the district level in a boston court. look, we don't appoint judges to our district courts to conduct foreign policy or to make decisions about our national security. under statutory law and under the constitution, that authority belongs to the presiden

a federal appeals court refused to reinstate the order. it had banned refugees from seven muslim majority countries for 120 days. trump tweeted tonight, "see you in court." alison: first, a health alert, 80 kids sent home sick from an elementary school. they all reported a severe stomach illness. jonathan: still no word on what happened. >> not fun. saying about the virus that is wreaking have break at oak ridge elementary -- wreaking havoc at oak ridge elementary. they had the virus, along with nearly 80 other kids. >> this is the first time we've had it in about two years. we count our blessings for not having it as bad. health officials are trying to figure out if they had the nora virus. people can get it from contaminated services or water. it spreads quickly through day care, cruise ships, and schools. >> keep the kids home when they are sick. the cdc, most to outbreaks happen between november and april. >> it will prevent them from getting sick. tim: wash your hands. >> because we don't want to get sick. tim: alison: this just into

neil gorsuch, from the denver federal appeals court, is 49. he's the youngest supreme court nominee in a quarter of a century, and could now sit for decades to come. he fills the seat left vacant for a year by the death of antonin scalia. president obama's nominee was blocked last year by the republican—controlled congress. sarah corker reports. there was a hint of reality tv drama. president donald trump's nominee for the supreme court revealed during a prime time televised address. today, i am keeping another promise to the american people by nominating judge neil gorsuch. supreme court justices are appointed for life. president trump's choice, a staunch conservative judge who will help shape law for years to come on things like gun control and human rights. —— and religious rights. he has a tremendous mind and tremendous discipline. he has earned bipartisan support. what do we know about judge neil gorsuch? he's 49 and lives in denver, colorado. a graduate of columbia university and harvard law school. he served on the 10th us circuit court

sunday we saw the justice department file an emergency request within the ninth circuit, the court of appeals, asking essentially to press pause on the sweeping division that came out of that seattle court on friday evening. and then just a few hours ago, actually i should say an hour ago, the court of appeals for the ninth circuit has responded and said in short we need further briefing on this. we cannot give you your emergency administrative relief. we need to hear from the other side. so we'll see full briefing from the plaintiff in that case, the state attorney general and then we will hear again from the justice department on monday afternoon. >> so what this means for homeland security, for example, is that for the moment business as usual. anybody from anywhere where a valid u.s. visa, even if you're on that list of seven countries, can still come into the u.s. >> reporter: that's correct. as of right now, judge robart's order, the seattle court judge, his ruling is in full effect. and so everything that has started on saturday morning where dhs, i should say homeland security and the

yes, although the court will react quickly, this is an emergency panel of the ninth circuit court of appeals, judges carter, obama and george w. bush appointee and they'll act quickly. the government is the last to submit its briefs at 6:00 tonight and any point after that the court could act >> once the court acts i know it's very difficult to play this all out but all of the scenario, they could continue the hold and actually wait for arguments to be made before the court? >> the best way to think of this is the two states and possibly a third, hawaii wants to get into the act here, have gone to a federal judge in seattle and said we think this program is unconstitutional and illegal, but before you get to that, in the meantime, put an emergency temporary hold on what the government's been doing while we get ready to duke it out in court. that's what the judge did friday night, what's before the appeals court. whoever dunt prevail in the appeals court can ask the supreme court for a stay. this is still before the judge and still a mini trial on whether the judge should issue an order to ei

it would be all the members of the ninth circuit court of appeals. >> accept this circuit court of appeals is so huge that they don't sit with all 29. they sit in groups of nine, ten, and ten. the three who ruled against him would be joined by another seven and those ten would address it anew on its way presumably to the supreme court. the justice department could decide to bypass the en banc request and go on to a divided supreme court. >> chris: i want to bring in john roberts at the white house. it may be able to shed some clarity. first of all, any reaction? it's just been a matter of moments to the ninth circuit court ruling. what is president trump going to do now? >> i dropped by the office on my way out and i was told, what have you got? they said standby. we should be getting something very soon. we have been monitoring twitter as well. nothing from the president. jeff sessions, who was just sworn in as the attorney general a few hours ago, you can bet is working furiously on this. we don't know if the judge will appeal this to a en banc session of the ninth circuit if they plan o

the appeals court>> -- you haveo --p in mind this is not a the appeals court says they had the right review the policy thesecondly, unless administration can show especially good cause that it's interests are being harmed even worse, we are going to leave in place the lower court order. immediateppose an appeal would come before the divided court? >> they would. keep in mind there are proceedings for longer-term injunctions still going on at the district court level. should the supreme court decide to turn here. there are only eight. they would need five of them to agree and do what the ninth circuit wasn't and that would be to stop. they would have to get at least one of the court members liberal block and that is a pretty tall order. among all of the things they are expected to discuss, is the travel ban one of the topics that could be up for discussion? have a lot of different things to discuss. this is mostly an economic focused meeting. they will talk about the trade relations between the u.s. and japan. they will talk about moving forward and talk about national security. it wi

government lawyers have been fighting to reinstate president trump's travel ban in an appeals court. the court in san francisco has been hearing arguments about who has the right to challenge the ban and why it needs to be introduced so urgently. romania's government will face a motion of no confidence in parliament later after a week of mass protests forced it to scrap of the brazilian city of vitoria after a violent crime wave that erupted after the police began a strike on saturday. about 70 people are reported to have been killed. now for the latest financial news with sally bundock and world business report. weighing the arguments — a federal appeals court hears the case for and against president trump's controversial travel ban — we talk you through what's at stake. and share markets in india soar on the hopes its central bank will cut interest rates to revive the economy — but will it deliver. we'll be live in mumbai for the latest. welcome to world business report. i'm sally bundock. also in the programme. growing a new crop? the farmers who put solar panels in their fields. a

the latest headlines: a setback for donald trump — a us appeals court has upheld a lower court's suspensione security of our nation is at stake. lawyers for france's centre—right presidential candidate francois fillon have called on prosecutors to drop a preliminary investigation against him. they said it violated the democratic principle of the separation of powers for the judiciary to investigate mps. mr fillon's campaign has been dogged by claims, which he denies, that his wife and two of his children were paid for non—existent parliamentary work. on thursday, his two children were questioned by investigators. sarah corker reports. francois fillon is on the offensive, refusing to step aside, claiming he is the victim of a media and left—wing plot. he is focusing on the campaign trail, claims he used public funds to play family members for non—existentjobs won't go away " pay- for non—existentjobs won't go away —— pay. his lawyers denounced an enquiry by a financial prosecutor as illegal, and described the allegations as baseless. we asked by the financial procedure to stop its investigat

so that will be interesting once it goes up on appeal and the ninth circuit court of appeals judges, whenever they get on the wheel start scrutinizing the opinion and ask the questions, what were the facts upon which he based this and what legal concepts did he apply? and the less he applied or the less that he found in the lower court opinion, the less there is for the appeals court to review. >> jay, to you. some republicans openly criticized the rollout of this executive decision, specifically, how it was implemented without necessarily tapping into some of the agencies that would be affected by it. how do you see them responding to this legal conundrum moving forward? >> capitol hill was tepid in their support for this travel ban. if they actually wanted to support it, they could pass legislation in support of it which would actually help cement the travel ban, help bolster it and you noticeably saw neither chamber of commerce move towards any legislation to support that travel ban. it certainly does make the confirmation of donald trump's supreme court justice nominee gorsuch re

liz: president -- media saying he should never have gone after 9th circuit court of appeals. d confident, supreme court justice saying, that basically, it is demoralizing the language of the president. is coming from a meeting with senator richard blumenthal, what to you make of that? >> once again, i don't recall anyone saying anything when we had that first decision on the affordable carable act and barack obama scared he never heard of a judiciary making a rule over a case law. he does not know about madison case there. where it talked about judicial review, i forget the other party, but madison case. so no one said anything back then when barack obama challenged the supreme court. liz: to your point, president obama criticize the supreme court with justices sitting there in his 2010 state of the union address. >> absolutely. and madison versus marbury. justice alito was saying that is not true, so, again, it is hypocrisy that people see. this is the same hypocrisy when you have someone like a senator cory booker who spoke out against jeff sessions, but not long ago he was

all eyes on a federal appeals court in california that could rule as early as tomorrow on whether toet the trump d administration resume enforcement on immigration after a flurry of legal developments the past 72 hours. we will get the latest from the justice correspondent, pete williams. >> it's the first big legal challenge of donald trump's presidency in the hands of the appeals court after a judge ordered the government to put two states, minnesota and washington claim it is unconstitutional and the justice department rushed to the appeals court arguing that the law gives the president authority to control the borders. >> i don't think a judge can substitute his judgment for the judgment of the president on what is detrimental to the u.s. >> mr. trump blasted the ruling saying it came from so-called judge adding later if something happens, blame him and the court system. the state said the travel restriction is harming their university, stranding students and faculty. 97 mostly high tech companies said it hurts their ability to recruit the world's brightest and three former secre

well, the appeals court will decide which arguments it finds favourable. —— he needed to know. e saying this may actually be good if it goes to the supreme court. —— good for donald trump. may this be a bit of an own goalfor the trump. may this be a bit of an own goal for the courts that what this to begin with? it is early days and we can't say how this will turn out. we can be fairly confident that whichever side loses in the appeals court in california, they will almost certainly take it to the supreme court. we have to remember that the supreme court is not at its full number of judges will stop because of the death of one judge, it only has eight at the moment. it so it only has eight at the moment. it so happens that the eightjudges are absolutely split down the middle. four are appointed by the democrat and fourare four are appointed by the democrat and four are presented by the republicans. the last time there was an immigration case, they split down the middle. if they split down the middle this time, the verdict which everybody will have to honour was the last one and