Trump travel ban: Court questions if it is anti-Muslim
Donald Trump's travel ban faced its toughest test yet as a panel of appeals court judges questioned if it was anti-Muslim and unconstitutional.
The contentious hearing before three judges on the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals focused on whether a restraining order issued by a lower court should remain in effect while the ban is challenged.
But it also examined broader constitutional concerns about the president's order, with a lawyer for the government questioned for an hour over whether there was evidence people from the seven countries affected - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - posed a danger to the US.
On the opposite side, an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington states, which are challenging the ban, was questioned rigorously over their claim the ban was religiously motivated.
Citing his own calculations, Judge Richard Clifton asked if the ban could be considered to discriminate against Muslims if only 15% of the world's Muslims were affected by it.
The panel said at the end of the session it would issue a ruling as soon as possible.
Whatever the finding, the matter is likely to go to the US Supreme Court.
Under Trump's presidential order, travellers from the seven countries affected were banned from entering the US for 90 days on 27 January.
All refugees were also banned for 120 days, with the exception of refugees from Syria, whom he would ban indefinitely.
Trump, who took office on 20 January, has defended the measure - which sparked worldwide protests - as necessary for national security.
On Friday, a federal judge in Seattle suspended the order and many travellers who had been waylaid by the ban quickly moved to travel to the US while the order is debated.
Trump has made clear he is unhappy his administration has to fight in the courts to uphold his ban, a policy he says will protect the country.
Separetley, Homeland Security secretary John Kelly told a congressional panel that he should have delayed the ban in order to brief Congress on the order
"The desire was to get it out quick so that potentially people that might be coming here to harm us would not take advantage of some period of time that they could jump on an airplane and get here," Kelly told the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security.
"This is all on me by the way. I should have delayed it just a bit so that I could talk to members of Congress," he said.
The temporary ban was brought in swiftly and initially caused confusion at airports, with the White House later forced into a partial reverse, saying those with green cards would be granted waivers.