here to remind us what the judges are weighing is newshour regular, marcia coyle of the national law journal. marcia, welcome. so we are waiting. we've been given the word by the court. they intend to hand down this decision. remind us what they are ruling on. >> okay. they are examining the government's appeal of the seattle judge's temporary restraining order that blocks the president's executive order on immigration. now, a temporary restraining order is exactly what it says it is, it's a brief halt that basically gives a judge time to have full briefing and a hearing on the claims before him, but the judge doesn't just say, okay , for a request to a temporary restraining order. the moving party here, the states of washington and minnesota, had to show the judge that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the executive order went forward and also that they were likely to succeed on the merits. so now that the government has appealed that, the burden was on the government to show the three-judge appellate panel that the government of the united states would suffer irreparabl

joining me to examine the ruling, is newshour regular, marcia coyle of the national law journal. marcia, you've had a little bit of time to look at this ruling that just came down 45 minutes ago. what did you find in. >> this was an unsigned opinion, and it was a unanimous opinion by the three appellate judges. the government had to show the panel here that it had the likelihood of success on the merits and also there was a likelihood of irreparable harm if this panel did not put aside the temporary restraining order that was blocking the president's executive order. the panel said basically that the government did not provide evidence to support either claim, that it would succeed on the merits and that there was irreparable harm. in terms of the likelihood of irreparable harm, the government had said these seven countries, for example, that are targeted in the order, were countries that had been designated by prior administrations and congress as having terrorist activity, but the panel said that there was no evidence of strikes here in the country by those, and also that the te

but not as furious as their constituents are. >> o'brien: nina totenberg, marcia coyle, two of the bestrt watchers in the land, thank you both very much. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: nearly half the world's population, three billion people, cook using stoves that burn bio-mass fuel, like wood or charcoal. that seemingly-harmless act is silently killing millions every year because of regular exposure to harmful smoke. an international alliance is on a mission to reduce those deaths by distributing 100 million cleaner stoves around the world, but some health experts doubt whether those new stoves can truly save lives. as hari sreenivasan reports in a story produced with global health frontiers, researchers in ghana are trying to find the answer. >> most of our communities and households in ghana-- actually, in africa-- are rural by nature, and therefore they depend on wood to cook their food, to heat their water. >> reporter: dr. kwaku poku asante is the head of research at the kintampo health research center of the ghana health service. he's leading a study on the effects of wood smoke o

marcia coyle, thank you so much for speaking with us. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: one charge the president and his team have raised repeatedly in recent days is his claim that the news media either ignores or under-covers terrorist incidents. on monday, the president himself said, "the dishonest press doesn't want to report" on terrorist attacks. that was followed by the white house issuing a list of attacks that it contends did not get enough press attention. philip bump, who reports for the "washington post," has been looking into the accuracy of the president's claims. he joins me now from new york. so just to be clear, what exactly did the president himself say, and distinguish that from what his press secretary said. >> it's an absolutely critical distinction. the president speaking to the united states central command said that the media was not reporting, that for whatever reason, implying there was some bias involved, the media wasn't reporting about terror attacks. the white house's press secretary then came back and modified that, tried to soften it and say, what he mend to say i