Court Hears Arguments on Trump Travel Ban: Live Analysis

Mr. Purcell is pushed on whether the states have enough evidence to show that the Trump administration was by driven racial animus in issuing the executive order. The states have pointed to comments Mr. Trump and his advisers made around the order.

“Its remarkable to have this much evidence of intent, without any discovery,” Mr. Purcell says.

Quesitoning the states' lawyer, Washington State Solicitor General Noah Purcell, judges are digging deeper into the constitutional issues, going beyond standing and other procedural issues and probing claims about Establishment Clause violations.

This is a double-edged sword for opponents of the Trump travel ban. Judge Canby wants Mr. Purcell to more concretely back up the states' claim that the travel ban is motivated by discriminatory animus.

The "vast majority of Muslims are unaffected," by the ban, Judge Canby says.

"We're not saying this is a complete ban on Muslims," says Mr. Purcell.

"Do I have to believe everything you allege?" asks Judge Canby.

Judge Clifton asks a question more sympathetic to the government.

"Do you deny that there is concern about people coming from those countries separate and apart from what their religion might be?" he asks.

On the question of whether the block was overly broad, Mr. Purcell says a narrower pause wouldn’t address the constitutional violations the state is alleging.

That violation “harms everyone in the state,” he says.

He also says that, until the Trump administration revises the order to specifically exclude green card holders, the language of the order still affects them.

Judge Clifton asks the states about the number of people from Washington and Minnesota who are affected by the order.

"I suspect it's a small fraction," of the total number of people affected, he said.

The judge went on to ask "why shouldn't we limit" the restraining order to protect the people who have been in the U.S. previously or who are connected to the states. He noted the very broad order from the trial court blocking the president in total. "Why isn't it overbroad?" the judge asked.

It was a rough line of question for the Trump side. The administration's lawyer was grilled on the rationale for the travel ban -- the judges clearly not taking the White House's assertion about security grounds on faith -- before getting bogged down on questions of standing and Supreme Court case law that Justice Department lawyer August E. Flentje didn't seem to have at his fingertips.

The court was skeptical of the argument that Washington State and Minnesota lack standing to bring the suit. But more problematic for the White House, it signaled that it might subject the travel ban to a more rigorous review than the Justice Department argued was necessary.

The questioned reached its most tense moment when Judge Canby asked whether Mr. Trump's authority was so vast it could impose a ban on Muslim entry. Mr. Frentje doesn't take the bait on this, but he conceded that "he's not sure he's convincing the court." At the end, he seemed to suggest a middle-ground outcome: a stay that applies to only foreign nationals who haven't been to the U.S.

Mr. Purcell argues the government hasn’t shown what problems will arise if the court doesn't immediately reinstate the executive order.

The government showed “no clear factual claim or evidentiary claims from what that irreparable harm would be,” he says. He is getting fewer questions from the panel than Mr. Flentje.

And many of those questions have been on more technical legal matters as opposed to the states' core claims for why the executive order should remain on hold.

Looking back quickly, here's one telling moment from DOJ's argument time. Mr. Flentje at one point, scrambling near the end of his time, said, "I'm not sure I'm convincing the court."

Washington state’s lawyer Noah Purcell starts his argument. He tells the court that granting the government’s request would throw the immigration system back into chaos.

“The court should decline that invitation,” he says.

Mr. Flentje is clearly playing defense at this point. He falls back to some of the Justice Department's arguments that that trial judge's temporary restraining order is far too broad.

At the very least, the president's order should apply to people "who have never been to the United States," and don't have connections to the states, he says.

And with that, Mr. Flentje's presentation ends. He saves a few minutes for rebuttal at the end of the argument.

The justice department lawyer says the president's power to exclude aliens is virtually unlimited.

Judge Canby wants to see how far the Trump side will take that argument, asking Mr. Flentje a provocative question: Would the president have legal authority to impose an outright ban on Muslim entry?

"This is a far cry from that situation," Mr. Flentje replies.

Judge Clifton goes on to cite the states' claims that they are being directly harmed by the travel ban because students and faculty abroad are unable to return to state universities.

"In this case, the state of Washington is claiming its going to hurt the university... That sounds very much like the same kind of right that was asserted” in a previous case, he says.

Mr. Flentje, arguing for the government, is getting interrupted consistently by the judges, all of whom have questions about the breadth and scope of the underlying order. The judges are going after the executive order itself, not really so much the stay at this point.

The Ninth Circuit judges push back against the claim that the states have no standing to challenge the order.

Judge Clifton, for example, points to several past court rulings that appear to support the states' ability to bring the lawsuit.

For those of you just joining us, Justice Department lawyer August E. Flentje is facing questions from Judges William C. Canby Jr., Michelle Friedland and Richard Clifton. You can read more on the judges here.

Judge Michelle Friedland is asking tough questions. She wants Trump administration on the record about whether it thinks the president has unlimited power to deny entry to aliens.

And she wants more specifics about the security calculations behind Trump's executive order.

"We're not acknowledging any review," is warranted, Justice Department lawyer August E. Flentje tells the panel.

DOJ's Mr. Flentje moves on to procedural arguments, pressing the government's case that the states of Washington and Minnesota don't have legal standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the executive order on behalf of state residents.

Judge Friedland asks if the government is arguing the courts can't even review the president's decisions on immigration concerning national security. Mr. Flentje answers, "Yes."

Mr. Flentje says the president in part relied on previous determinations by the Obama administration about the potential dangers from those countries.

"I understand the concept, but it's pretty abstract," Judge Clifton says of the president's national security justifications. The judge noted that there already were screening procedures in place for immigrants.

After Judge Friedland interjects to ask about evidence that the government can point to to justify the ban, Mr. Flentje refers back to Congress's identification of the 7 countries and says: "These proceedings have been moving very fast."

After DOJ's Mr. Flentje begins the argument, Judge Canby jumps in first to clarify what the department is seeking at this point in the case.

Mr. Flentje makes clear that the government is seeking a temporary stay of the trial court's restraining order that blocked the president's immigration plans.

Judge Friedland jumps in to ask twice whether the government has introduced any evidence about terrorism threats that would justify the president's actions.

Here's background on how that list of seven countries was arrived at:

Government lawyer August Flentje starts out by saying the executive order is only a "temporary pause" on individuals from seven countries that Congress and the Obama administration determined posed special risks for the U.S. and that President Trump is well within his presidential power to implement it.

The Ninth Circuit is the nation's largest appeals court, covering several Western states. It has long been considered the most liberal U.S. appeals court. Today's three-judge panel will have several options on how to proceed. It could block all, some, or none of Mr. Trump's order.

The proceedings are getting underway now.

The case is an unusually direct, and early, test of presidential power, coming at the hands of a hard-charging chief executive, Mr. Trump. There are a host of legal issues in the case, which examines the president's powers over the border against certain legal limitations on his actions.

The challengers, among other things, say the Trump executive order is unlawfully discriminatory and violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.

Mr. Trump denies claims of discrimination and says he is being guided by concerns of keeping the nation safe from terrorism. He has also lashed out at the judiciary on Twitter, most notably calling U.S. District Judge James Robart “this so-called judge.”