here's the ninth circuit court of appeals saying washington has standing because of the interests of state universities and hundreds of students there. that's a pretty interesting conclusion. let me briefly reset the situation. the ninth circuit court of appeals has handed down its ruling. it is upheld the temporary restraining order from the federal judge in washington, temporary restraining order stopping president trump's executive order limiting travel from seven largely muslim nations and from all refugees coming into the country, indefinite suspension of refugees from syria. he said it was a matter of national security until they can figure out a more effective, extreme vetting measure to be able to tell who was coming into the country and whether they meant as harm or not. let's bring in our panel. lisa boothe, columnist with the "washington examiner." julie pace, white house correspondent for the associated press, and syndicated columnist charles krauthammer. i'm sure, julie, you've been on your machine trying to find out. any reaction? >> no reaction yet. we expected this to

proposed travel ban, not happening right now, based on the unanimous decision of the ninth circuit court of appeals. these three judges, very defiant response. see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake. he said even a bad high school student would have to rule in his favor. these three judges are more than bad high school students. >> look at that tweet all in caps. he's adamant about this ruling. you're right this is a setback. sean spicer has been in the briefing room -- you talked about the legal realm. he's been in the briefing room, this is all just -- the substances underlying all of this, they're trying to act like this is not something to adjudicate and obviously the process will continue. the actual executive order, the content of the executive order. but to say it's not a setback would just misread the entire thing. out of the gate, one week after in the administration he issues in executive order. he can't get out of the gate it seems on this very important issue that started as a major campaign promise, something he was trying to deliver on, and he is sty mied from doing

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

appeal to a u.s. district court judge's suspension of the travel ban. a legal victory would reinstate at least for now that travel ban. >> and the appeal has been filed with the 9th circuit court of appeals which will hear the case. the three judges who may hear the case were an pointed separately by former presidents jimmy carter, george w. bush and barack obama. the justice department is making several different arguments in its appeal to get the suspension of that travel ban overturned. >> cnn justice reporter laura jarrett told us earlier what those argues might involve. >> this is a strongly worded legal filing. just after midnight here on the east coast, the u.s. justice department moved for what's called an emergency stay of the sweeping decision out of seattle that temporarily halted the enforcement of president trump's travel ban on a nationwide basis. and in this legal filing, the justice department says that block the travel ban "harms the public," and second-guesses the president's national security judgment. the thrust of the argument here b

of comments from the president. wolf? >> athena jones, our white house court, thank you very much. and we have some breaking news. the 9th circuit court of appeals in san francisco has just announced the three judges have reached a decision on president trump's proposed travel ban. that decision will be announced. the 9th circuit court of appeals says within hours before the close of business day out on the west coast. that would be in san francisco, of course, cnn will have extensive live coverage once we get the decision from those three judges. in the meantime, let's get some more on what's going on with the democratic senator jean sha heen of new hampshire, she's a member of the foreign relations and armed services committee. you see the breaking news we're getting. what do you hope the decision is, senator? >> well, obviously i hope they will strike down the executive order on immigration. i think this is an order that is unamerican, it's not consistent with our values of a nation that's built on immigrants. it was poorly implemented. there is still a lot of confusion about what it means. i think it's not good for us economically. i'm heari

loses that's on the right side in front of the ninth circuit court of appeals and you end up at the supreme court at that point, at that point you win 8-0. the risk right now if justice kennedy gets the petition of the stay, he could probably refer to the entire court, a 4-4 is a tie, a tie is a loss. there's only seven days left, they could also submit the record to the trial court and fight it out there. i would really look at reissuing this executive order tonight. >> sean: in the interim, you could have the possible confirmation of neil gorsuch would which make it rest of the risk. explain the slight changes you're discussing, you think from 4-4 to 8-0, why? >> the one area that was not clearly set forth, it was clear with the intent was, the courts have said and that that pleasant later explained through the white house counsel with the provision, it does not apply and this came in the directive mounted the order, that the executive order would not apply to green card holders, those with residency visas. that is not in the executive order that was in the directive. put it in the

of the 9th circuit court. liberal majorities now control 9 of the 13 circuit court of appeals. that is 70% of them, and primarily because of former president obama, who managed to place more than a third of the 179 judges on the federal appellate court, and liberal slant found in federal district court, 51% are democratic a.yes, only -- appointees, and only 34% are republican. that difference is 14%, and those district court judges, well, they -- we don't have judges, those seats are vacant. trump has a monumental, opportunity to begin turning the troubling trend to the left around in our judiciary. with 118 total judicial vacancies right now, that is 91 in district court. 18 in appellate court, and one supreme court justice. that neil gorsuch has been nominated to fill. our first guest tonight said that law is now on president trump's side. joining me now, executive editor at weekly standard fred barnes. >> thank you. lou: here we are friday, and it has been an extraordinary, another one, week, a third week of this presidency, in terps of news, and -- terms of news and challeng

know what, forget about the executive order, that was announced, rejected by the 9th circuit court of appeals earlier, the district court as well, and go ahead and start from scratch, come up with a new executive order and sort of acknowledge the first one was a blunder? >> i'm not going to go down there, but i think instead of fighting this in court, absolutely. go on to the new one is what i would do. and then it just takes that off the table, the argument, the lawsuit, the waste of american tax payers' dollars. let's start anew and get it right and move on as quickly as we can. >> the president said i'll see you in court. in his initial tweet after the decision was announced last night. maybe that may not necessarily happen. >>> let's get to the national security advisor, michael flynn. >> sure. >> if, in fact, he did speak in december to the russian ambassador here in washington, sergey kisliak and discuss the issue of sanctions, u.s. sanctions against russia before president trump took office, did he break any law, and did he subsequently lie about that? >> that's a great question. did h

this is a nominee who the decade ago confirmed to the court of appeals. >> what did you learn about him? >> he is a very impressive judge, a judge who takes seriously his obligation to interpret the law and follow the constitution. one of the things i was most encouraged with is he underscored the job of a judge under article three and contracted that with the men and women who served in this building. article one, those who pass legislation. the lawmakers. we need judges who understand the distinction and don't think when you put on a robe you get to enact whatever you laws you favor. that is the judicial humility that used to be the foundation of the supreme court. i think judge gorsuch understands the limited role to applying the law and not decreeing whatever policy that particular judge might face. >> what would you say about this judge and why they should consider him to your democrat colleagues? >> on any measure his qualifications are impeccable. he is a graduate of harvard law cool and clerked were justice byron white who was john f kennedy's only appointment to the supreme cou

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

led by the ninth circuit court of appeals. holding the stoppage of president trump's immigration order and that is the subject of this evening's "talking points" memo. let's cut through all the mumbo-jumbo. it will give you a headache. let's cut through the political hackery. here's what is really happening. the trump administration believes that terrorists are nations with no central control can get to the usa in a way that is far too

of at least what the ninth circuit said their problem is. even if the court were to still rule against the position of the president at the district court or the court of appeals you win at the supreme court 8-0 if you clarify that issue. i would clarify that issue. >> melissa: a lot of people agree with you. the "wall street journal" column not so much. they say the best option for mr. trump is scrap the order and trust mr. kelly to do refugee vetting. but if the president insists on a new order run it through extreme vetting. the alternative is a possible bloodbath at the high court. >> yeah. here is what -- look, i'm a supreme court litigator. one thing i know how to do is count to five. right now with the existing makeup of the supreme court i'm not so sure with the existing executive order you get there. i'm hesitant there quite frankly. i like to win those cases when i take them up. what the "wall street journal" is saying in the editorial today is not inconsist went with what i'm saying. you can put in the executive order that dhs will be the implementing arm of the executive order. that make sense now that you have a dhs secretary. it is changing a par

we should note that the court of appeals did not decide on the merits of the executive order.hey decided on whether they had standing or not. >> this is actually a very good move. i think he knows and understand understands, especially since this decision, like to say this is throwing the ninth circuit a little bit of shade, legal shade. not going to even address it, follow up with them. he is going to pursue a different path that they feel will be more successful and have a better outcome, which i feel from a strategy standpoint is smart. this is no surprise. i called it on "o'reilly." no shot that the ninth circuit court of appeals is going to say the travel suspension was okay. the only possibility was maybe if it was a 2-1 decision, but they were unanimous. obviously he is going to take i it. >> dana? >> judicial setbacks are nothing new for presidents. this has played out early on, taken a lot of the oxygen for the first two weights of the first 100 days. and i thought that what the president was saying today in the press conference meant that they intended to withdraw th

nomination but i would ask any of those democrats who 10 years ago were happy to confirm to the court of appeals what has changed? now in addition to repression of career to have a decade court of appeals judge that has a consistent fidelity to law to apply aly the constitution to vigorously uphold the bill of rights and that this'' we should unwonted a judge my colleagues would preside to vote to confirm a good man and a good judge

court. of the cases reviewed by the supreme court. 86% of the 9th circuit court of appeal case were overturneddon't review all of the ruling from the 9th. but of those they decided to take a look at, 86% were overturned. so this is by no means a final victory for washington and their lawyers. they believe they will win at the supreme court and they say they will take it all the way up there if they need to. lou: that victory could cost american lives. so i hope they are not clicking their heels too loudly. up next, president trump insisted his executive order is legal. >> here it is. people coming in. suspend. the entry of all aliens. right? it's not like -- again, a bad high school student would understand this. lou: attorneys david ritman and john hoffman join me next. d pay. you've earned your medicare. it was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. thankfully, president trump does too. "i am going to protect and save your social security and your medicare. you made a deal a long time ago." now, it's congress' turn. tell them to protect medicare. this is one g

i'm sure the court of appeals was aware of that. just like the nominee had to answer that question fw about so-called judge. any thought about the process being poisoned? >> a lot of the protests, not all of them, the women's protests was a legitimate one, have basically the trump administration engineerized hard left, anti-tolerant hard left, they are protesting infront of the houses, they are extremist who exploit issues for their own benefit. i think the courts ignore them and should ignore them. as far as president's statements, he manage to say things that will upset chief justice who is head of the government to talk to about there a simple issue that a dumb high school student would understand is a complex issue. i can teach seminar on this case it's so complicated and difficult and multifaceted and idea calling so-called judge when he was nominated saying the courts are political, of course, they are political. that's why president anominated gorsuch. this court and most courts would look at the law, look the president, try

courts. the latest, of course, coming overnight in the middle of the night, a decision from the 9th district court of appeals doj's request to immediately reinstate president trump's travel ban. the department of justice filed appeal during the day yesterday in response to that federal judge's decision, that immediately halted the travel ban. the appeal argued that it is the sovereign prerogative of the president to exclude aliens. also, that the ruling from the federal judge was judicial overreach. again, the court of appeals denied the request. what that means for travelers now is that the order from the federal judge in seattle stays in place and allows people from those decide country to have the appropriate documentation like visas to travel and enter into u.s. now, the court is asking both sides to file more arguments. this is all temporary until they can hear further arguments in this case. now, throughout the day yesterday, president trump was tweeting you guys mentioned some those tweets. here's one that came later in the evening, but it did come before that decision from the 9th district court of a

court. of the cases reviewed by the supreme court. 86% of the 9th circuit court of appeal case were overturned. they don't review all of the ruling from the 9th. but of those they decided to take a look at, 86% were overturned. so this is by no means a final victory for washington and their lawyers. they believe they will win at the supreme court and they say they will take it all the way up there if they need to. lou: that victory could cost american lives. so i hope they are not clicking their heels too loudly. up next, president trump insisted his executive order is legal. >> here it is. people coming in. suspend. the entry of all aliens. right? it's not like -- again, a bad high school student would understand this. lou: attorneys david ritman and john hoffman join me n n n n n liberty mutual stood with me when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. liberty did what? yeah, with liberty mutual all i needed to do to get an estimate was snap a photo of the damage and voila! voila! (sigh) i wish my insurance company had that... wait! hold it... hold it boys... there's supposed

judge gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by the 10th circuit court of appeals. >> the qualifications are beyond dispute. he is the man of our country and a man who our country really needs and needs badly to observe the rule of law and the role of justice. >> as this process moves in senate, i look forward to speaking with members from both sides of the aisle. >> for the pick was announced, democrats haven't decided them last night were more signs of the confirmation battle end up being a long one. >> it's a very hostile appointment. as far as your family is concerned if you prepare, drink water if any at way to interact, this is a very bad decision. well outside the mainstream of american legal file. that committee to supreme court precedent. >> while democrats unhappy with this pick, republicans say they fully support the nomination. judge gorsuch is a homeland. i'm happy during the campaign president trump come as the american people he would nominate to constitutionalists replaced justice scalia and today president trump kept his word. he honored their commitment. tonight was a big d

of backgrounds. both the district court judge and the court of appeals judges are not all democratic presidential appointees. neither are they all republican appointees. and the court of appeals decided unanimously to keep the temporary restraining order in place. >> rosen thinks the judges must have considered many factors related to the u.s. constitution, such as religion rights and due process. >> i think the big message from the district court and from the federal court of appeals for the ninth circuit is that the issues are not as clear as the president believes them to be. the president the other day said even someone with a rudimentary sort of education could read the law and understand it. i have this essentially complete power over foreign affairs, and the district court and the court of appeals -- it's not so clear to us. >> rosen said he expects the trump administration will appeal to the supreme court, but he noted a tie is possible with only eight supreme court justices at the moment. a deadlocked bench would mean the decision by the appeals court would stand. rosen thinks that scenario would g

assuming the court of appeals can't make up a firm final decision, it goes to the supreme court, eight justices instead of the required nine would be there. >> no, it's entirely possible that anything that happens in the next six weeks to two months, you're going to have a short court. if this case actually ends up in the supreme court on the merits, without these early stage procedural maneuverings and rangeling, i think it will happen sometime in the fall. by thin, i think justice gorsuch will be confirmed. at least by the time the court sits down in october, they'll have a full bench. >>> we're getting some breaking news, jim sciutto is in the newsroom for us right now. >> a senior u.s. military official confirming to cnn the u.s. navy s.e.a.l. raid in yemen a week ago sunday that left a navy s.e.a.l. dead, the target of that raid not just intelligence collection, but in fact the leader of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he was a target of the raid, he was not killed in the raid, and since that attack last sunday, he's gone and put out an audio recording mocking president donald

ten e.0n zaza asked the court of appeal to over turn —— she asked the court of appeal to overturn a decisionjulian hawkshead, a lawyer. have you come across a case like this before?” a lawyer. have you come across a case like this before? i must say, it is very rare to find a situation where the parties will defend the divorce. there are over 40,000 divorces a year based on behaviour 01’ divorces a year based on behaviour or at. most cases are dealt with on paper these days. both parties will consent and it will go through without any four. this is unusual and not just because without any four. this is unusual and notjust because the husband has chosen to defend the divorce, but when it has got to the hearing, the judge has indicated he wasn't satisfied there were grounds for divorce in the first place. someone ina divorce in the first place. someone in a marriage saying they are unhappy and wants to get out, that's clearly not enough? no, it's not. the court has to look at the facts. first of all they have to be persuaded that there are one of five different reasons for the divorce going th

a little earlier, he wouldn't be able to run his own company. >>> this morning ninth circuit court of appeals leans left. we looked into the history and found supreme court reverses most of the additions from the ninth circuit court. in 2015 alone the supreme court reversed 80% of the ninth circuit's decisions it heard. however, one notable decision that stood in 2012 when the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that prop 8, the law banning same sex marriage in california, was unconstitutional. in that case the supreme court declined to even issue a decision which made same sex marriage legal in california. >>> while the legal back and forth plays out, the borders are open and that means more happy reunions at sfo. peggy bunker is at the international terminal with more. >> almost 50 years. yeah. >> reporter: 30 years since he has seen his sisters. he's been living in the bay area working in texas that long. today he and his brother and nephew are welcoming his sisters from iran. >> 13 years ago, i applied to come to u.s. now it is time to come. and now trump didn't want that to happen. well

of course, the trial court judge and court of appeals had to assess the likelihood we would win and found it was likely we would win and we think that's accurate. of course, the president does have broad authority to protect national security but we believe the president should be able to do that without violating the constitution or laws passed by congress and so far, the president has not managed to do that. >> jeff? >> mr. ferguson, let's say you go back to the district court. is it your position there that you don't need to have any evidence, you don't need to have any more proceedings, you can go right to a decision on the he merits? >> no, it's our anticipation, noah may want to add to this but once we get back, jeff, to the trial court to the judge that there will be proceedings on the merits. in other words, we look forward to discovery for your viewers, not lawyers, we can ask for e-mails and take depositions of administration officials to get up the motivation, true motivation behind the executive order. we anticipate the judge allowing that to happen and have a process to get t

one judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals wants to see if his other colleagues on the bench arested in rehearing the case concerning the executive order. when this happens in court, boat sides are asked to file briefs on it and then a larger panel of judges votes. keep in mind this is a very liberal court so they may not vote to take it up. but it does put the administration in kind of an unusual position, right? at the same time they're trying to decide what the next steps are with the executive orders, they have to take this next step up and file briefs. it's really just an unusual turn in this legal drama. >> i suspect there will be more of them. gloria, from the political perspective, what would be more advantageous right now, for the president to continue to fight in court? i says, i'll see you in court. or forget about that, throw way the original order and rewrite a new one. >> can i just say, i almost feel sorry for the lawyers here because there is going to be double and triple work. look, i think from a political point of view, if you're donald trump and you want wins

court of appeals has asked both the state of washington and the trump administration early sunday morning to file more briefs to explain themselves. we will keep hearing their arguments monday afternoon. >> okay. sounds good. thank you so much. we appreciate it, laura. we want to bring in cnn legal analyst danny and immigration attorney jessica stern as well. can you both hear us? >> yes. good morning. >> excellent. danny, help us understand where this goes from here. >> what happens now is that the parties will brief the issues, so they'll each be given the opportunity to submit legal briefs making their argument. remember the only thing they're asking for is the ninth sur kci or asking in a way for a restraining order on the restraining order when you think about it. so at this point it's going to be -- the parties will have to brief the issue. you know, with courts, you can make things go pretty quickly. this is pretty break neck speed. but you can't have immediate relief the way the white house administration seems to want. the issue has to be briefed and the ninth scircuit has to hea

i want to turn first to this 9th circuit court of appeal. hat on it face looks reasonable. everyone -- nearly everyone is saying what is the point of what this district court did. >> i think obviously the law is on the side of the president. but i do think this. the appeals court, two members voted to hold it up. the same two judges will be two of the three tomorrow. both democrats. they add one republican. lou: that's a balance. >> june canaby is 85 and an expert in indian law. and one graduated from berkeley law. when you look at the entire court, there are 18 democrats and 7 republicans. howie: do you love these people who say the president is politicizing the judiciary saying so-called judge when this court is known as the most left wing court in the country. you have got chuck schumer as i said earlier, going after in a scorched earth pursuit june neil gorsuch, to deny him a seat, arguably one of the most qualified jurists since scalia. >> the way you get to be a federal judge is you get nominated by a senator from your state. in those t

the federal court of appeals has denied the u.s. justice department's emergency request, and in a short order just early this morning instead the court of appeals is asking both sides to file legal briefs before it will make a decision on the emergency ruling, and what this means is the federal ruling in seattle that saw spepbuspended will remain in place for now. >> for now. >> for now. >>> and then let's bring in tkada danny cevallos, and mrs. stern. what evidence does the department of justice and president trump, what evidence did they need to make their argument successful? >> they had a very high level burden, and to understand we had to take a bit of a step back and understand what exactly is happening here. i mean, when you put it in perspective, there has been no adjudication on the merits. the fact that the white house administration and the department of justice did not get a restraining order on the restraining order, and it doesn't mean they lose. if you take -- if you go back to the district court, that was not an adjud

the court of appealsç liberal court. and i suspect got their faxes in? >> yes and no. ms of ere. at the end of the day, any court has to establish its decision on the basis of merit. he's already experienced judges tonym circuit court of appeals they're not just simply tweeting a sudden opinion. so i think we'll see what they say and then we'll have another round which willht go to suprem court. here is the political question. if the court of appeals says that the ban on stays and people can continue toç come in, that puts basically the balance -- it puts the challenge to the trump administration and i think it open up divisions f.ym the trum administration isn't able to enforce the executive order while this goes all the way to the supreme court, this is a huge victory for president trump and his chiefzs-rategist steve bannon. >> and i think, those divisions are already -- we can see this divisions within the republican party is joining us from ç england, thank you very much. great having you on the show. >> thanks. >>> now president trump is announcing it could take

whether to enforce or suspend president trump's immigration ban, and that's what the ninth circuit court of appeals right here across the street will be deciding. on friday when james robart, a federal judge in seattle, issued a broad order blocking key parts of president trump's immigration order, he set into motion a chain of judicial decisions for the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco. >> and right now the state of washington has made a pretty good showing of inrep rabble harm. >> reporter: he says the trump administration is facing an uphill battle to convince the judges they should allow the travel ban to continue. on saturday the ninth circuit judges, who are in san francisco, phoenix and honolulu, denied the trump administration's original request to vacate the stay. the trump administration's final appeal was released right at today's 3:00 p.m. deadline. >> they're saying trust us. congress gave us the power. no court can review it, end of story. >> reporter: steve mayer is a constitutional attorney in san francisco and says the trump administration argues that congress gave t

circuit court of appeals. if the administration wins it, then the ball is in the opposition's court. they will appeal it up, the question is whether they go to the d.c. circuit or straight to the supreme court. if it goes all the way to the supreme court, whoever won at the appellate level is likely to win at the supreme court level because we have a split court, 4-4, and that means that the appellate decision is kept. trish: indeed. i've got to leave it there. karl, never a dull moment. >> exactly. trish thank you so much. i'm going to be right back. ding so that i can take my trading platform wherever i go. you know that thinkorswim seamlessly syncs across all your devices, right? oh, so my custom studies will go with me? anywhere you want to go! the market's hot! sync your platform on any device with thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade : . >> because he cares about making sure that we don't have attacks in this country, that we're protected, that we're ahead of the curve. i think we need to remind people the

the two finalists coming into today's date are judge neil gorsuch from the tenth circuit court of appeals and judge thomas hardiman of the third circuit court of appeals. i have been told judge gorsuch has been the front-runner in this. he's been compared to justice scalia and we will now see. here is the president. >> invited guests plus the press in the room tonight. he is coming out, leaving the suspense a little longer, coming out alone. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. when justice scalia passed away suddenly last february, i made a promise to the american people. if i were elected president, i would find the very best judge in the country for the supreme court. i promised to select someone who respects our laws and is representative of our constitution and who loves our constitution and someone who will interpret them as written. this may be the most transparent judicial selection process in history. months ago as a candidate, i publicly presented a list of brilliant and accomplished people to the american electorate and pledge

highly unusual for the court of appeals, threejudges in unusual for the court of appeals, three judgest of appeals, threejudges in san francisco unusual for the court of appeals, three judges in san francisco who are going to hear it, quite unusual for them to have an appeal and to hear argument by the lawyers as to whether a state should continue. —— stay. the quick and set is that whoever wins in this court is going to appeal to a higher body. —— the quick answer. 0ne to appeal to a higher body. —— the quick answer. one is all of the judges on the court of the night circuit and whoever comes out on that issue, they will then go to the supreme court. the supreme court does not automatically have to take it. they can deal with it or they can let the lower court ruling stand. i think that anyone who can predict the outcome of all of this, even though it is only procedural, even though it is only procedural, even though it is only procedural, even though the question is is it going to be in totally, is falling themselves. there are quite a few different arguments but can i ask you about

of mr. trump's travel ban, if the supreme court steps in? >> the eighth circumstance cut court of appeals trump's case, the trump administration case out of court. instead, they just denied their motion for that immediate, essentially a restraining order on the lower court's restraining order. they're asking the higher court to stop what the lower court stopped. they are allowing briefing on the matter, and we lawyers, when we say briefing, that means each side puts together their legal argument on paper, and then possibly even an oral argument, where they get to go and actually argue face-to-face with the judge. but the mere denial of the motion doesn't necessarily mean that the trump administration will ultimately lose. >> interesting. and after mr. trump signed the controversial travel ban, that federal judge in washington state issued that temporary restraining order over the weekend. now on the basis of the state's lawyers arguing that the executive order banning travelers from seven mainly muslim nations violates the constitution, do you agree with that argument? does it violate the

circuit court of appeals. bottom line by now, you have >>> good evening from chicago, i'm chris hayes. we were, of course, meant to air a town hall tonight exploring the challenges facing this city, we taped that town hall earlier today. it will now air tomorrow in this hour. the reason is that because tonight we have big, big breaking news. a unanimous ruling by a federal appeals court against president donald trump's travel ban. the trump administration asked the ninth circuit court of appeals to overturn a temporary restraining order on the ban put in place by a lower court last friday. instead, this decision keeps that restraining order in place. in other words, it blocks president trump's executive order nationwide and continues to block it as a lower court fund. we've already gotten response from the president himself posted on twitter in all caps "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake." joining me now from the white house briefing room, nbc news capitol hill correspondent kelly o'donne

a panel from the liberal ninth circuit court of appeals and these judges and hammered the trump claim that several states cannot sue on behalf of businesses and residents. it got so rough that the administration lawyer admitted he wasn't breaking through. >> i'm not sure i'm convincing the court so i want to make one really key point with regard to the injunction. that is that it's overbroad and should be immediately stated to the extent that it's overbroad even if the court thinks some applications of the order are problematic. >> a lawyer for washington state struggled himself to back up the claim that the president is targeting muslims. his best evidence was an interview rudy giuliani did with fox news with the mayor suggest of the president had him devise a muslim bent just by another name. one at judge poked major holes and that by noting the executive order does not impact a majority of muslims, listen. >> the seven countries encompass only a relatively small percentage of muslims. do you have any information as to what percentage or what proportion of the adherence to islam wor

asked of democrats now is what has changed a decade ago, you were able to nominate him into the court of appeals. he has a decade of an exemplary record. any judge that agrees with the outcome of every case he decides is probably a bad judge. not which litigate you like better or outcome or policy, it is to follow the law. i've spent this week and last week reading many of gorsuch's opinions and i think it reflects exactly that humility and fidelity to law that that makes him a worthy successor to justice scalia. >> tucker: you are advocating for him on the merit, that's a political question but i think it is meaningful. what is the scenario for that? >> i believe he will be confirmed. on the record, his academic record, background, extraordinary. he is a graduate of columbia harvard law school. john f. kennedy's only supreme court nomination -- he was a mentor of under him. she has demonstrated the intelligence, the faithfulness to the law. but i think republicans are going to vote for him but i also hope and believe a number of democrats will as well. those who are willing to confirm him ten y