President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban faced a tough day in court on Monday as a panel of judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenged it with question after question. 
 
 Back in March, a federal judge in Maryland blocked the executive order — which bans travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — from being enforced. The order also sought to temporarily halt the U.S. refugee program. 
 
 The appeals court is trying to decide whether the order violates the First Amendment’s protection of all religions. 
 
 Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall represented the Trump administration in the Richmond, Virginia, court room against a panel of 13 judges. 
 
 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, hears oral argument in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, a case concerning President Trump’s revised tra ... 
 
 The Trump administration and the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case to court, are arguing over two main questions. 
 
 Is the executive order a ban specifically on Muslims? 
 
 Does the executive order illegally target Muslims? 
 
 “That’s the most important issue in the whole case,” said Robert B. King, one of the judges on the panel. 
 
 That argument was used to block the ban in March when a federal judge pointed out that the countries included on the list were Muslim-majority countries. U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang called the executive order “the realization” of Trump’s “long-envisioned Muslim ban.” 
 
 “This is not a Muslim ban,” Wall told the judges on Monday. “Its text doesn’t have to anything to do with religion. Its operation doesn’t have anything to do with religion.” 
 
 Trump’s lawyer argues that the countries were chosen because of their ties to terrorism and that they only represented a small fraction of Muslim-majority nations. 
 
 The ACLU’s attorney Omar Jadwat argued back that Trump’s administration hasn’t provided enough evidence of the national security risk posed by these nations. 
 
 “The order is completely unprecedented in our nation’s history,” Jadwat said. 
 
 This brings us to the next question. 
 
 Should Trump’s campaign statements be held against him? 
 
 Trump’s attorney is trying to persuade the appellate judges that statements Trump made on the campaign trail shouldn’t factor into their decision in this case. That’s after U.S. District Judge Chuang cited those statements in March to block the order, saying it showed Trump’s intent with his executive order was to target Muslims. 
 
 One of the examples used is a press release from team Trump (which he also read out loud at a campaign rally in 2015) which calls for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” 
 
 https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/825925268795748354 
 
 The statement has since been removed from his website but the url still says “donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration.” 
 
 And you can watch him say it here. 
 
 Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" during a rally in South Carolina, an idea swiftly condemned by his rival GOP ca ... 
 
 Does that mean Trump meant the order to target Muslims? 
 
 Judge Paul V. Niemeyer on Monday pondered just how far a court should go into someone’s past to determine the person’s intent. 
 
 “Can we look at his college speeches? How about his speeches to businessmen 20 years ago?” Niemeyer asked. 
 
 Wall argued that the order should be judged for its text specifically, rather than Trump’s past statements. 
 
 The appeals court did not announce a decision on Monday and experts predict the case will likely fall to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. 
 
 Email: abby.hamblin@sduniontribune.com 
 
 Twitter: @abbyhamblin ||||| White House press secretary Sean Spicer was on the defensive in his Monday afternoon press conference when speaking about President Donald Trump's travel ban appeal and the Kushner family's attempt to recruit Chinese investors for an "investor visa" program. He said "[Kushner] wasn't involved." 
 
 A challenge to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban appears to hinge on whether a federal appeals court agrees that the Republican's past anti-Muslim statements can be used against him. 
 
 The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrestled Monday with whether the court should look beyond the text of the executive order to comments made by Trump and his aides on the campaign trail and after his election in order to determine whether the policy illegally targets Muslims. 
 
 Trump Travel Ban Blocked as Budget Plan Looms on Safety Nets 
 
 A revised travel ban penned by President Donald Trump was held by a Hawaii judge the same day it was supposed to go into effect on Wednesday as Trump laid out a new budget plan, setting money aside for a border wall along Mexico and the United States as well as increasing the military's budget. Critics are worried that social safety net programs could see their budget slashed. (Published Thursday, March 16, 2017) 
 
 "That's the most important issue in the whole case," said Judge Robert B. King, who was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton. 
 
 The panel of 13 judges peppered both sides with tough questions but gave few clues as to how they might rule. The judges did not immediately issue a decision on Monday. 
 
 A federal judge in Maryland who blocked the travel ban in March cited Trump's comments as evidence that the executive order is a realization of Trump's repeated promise to bar Muslims from entering the country. 
 
 The administration argues that the court shouldn't question the president's national security decisions based on campaign promises. 
 
 "This is not a Muslim ban. Its text doesn't have to anything to do with religion. Its operation doesn't have anything to do with religion," Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall told the appeals court. 
 
 The countries were chosen because they present terrorism risks and the ban applies to everyone in those countries regardless of religion, Wall said. Further, the banned countries represent a small fraction of the world's Muslim-majority nations, lawyers for the administration say in court documents. 
 
 Yates: Flynn Susceptible to Russian Blackmail 
 
 Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates appeared before a Senate panel investigating Russian interference on the 2016 presidential election, testifying that Michael Flynn was susceptible to blackmail by Russia. (Published Monday, May 8, 2017) 
 
 Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the U.S. remained on his campaign website even after he took office. That call, which was still online earlier Monday, appeared to have been taken down by the afternoon hearing. 
 
 Jadwat claims the administration has failed to provide a legitimate national security reason for the policy. 
 
 'Late Night': Closer Look at Michael Flynn, GOP Health Care 
 
 Seth Meyers discusses the recent developments of the investigation into ousted national security advisor Michael Flynn, as well as the latest version of the GOP's health care bill, which the House passed last week. (Published 5 hours ago) 
 
 "The order is completely unprecedented in our nation's history," Jadwat said. 
 
 Several judges expressed skepticism about the idea that the court would blind itself to Trump's comments about Muslims. 
 
 WH Blames Obama Administration for Flynn Security Clearance 
 
 White House press secretary Sean Spicer blamed former President Barack Obama for Michael Flynn's renewed federal security clearance at a Monday press conference. He said the Obama administration gave Flynn the highest level of clearance and they allowed Flynn to travel to Russia for a paid speaking event. (Published Monday, May 8, 2017) 
 
 "Don't we get to consider what was actually said here and said very explicitly?" asked Judge James A. Wynn Jr., who was appointed by President Barack Obama. 
 
 Another judge said he was worried about the idea of court opening the door to using a president's past to evaluate the constitutionality of a policy. 
 
 France's Macron Target of Email Leaks Two Days Before Vote 
 
 Emails and financial documents hacked from the campaign of a French presidential candidate hit the public just two days before France votes for its next president. Emmanuel Macron's campaign said the hack took place a few weeks ago, and was mixed with fake documents to interfere with the electoral process. (Published Friday, May 5, 2017) 
 
 "Can we look at his college speeches? How about his speeches to business men 20 years ago?" asked Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, who was tapped by President Ronald Reagan. 
 
 The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. 
 
 Trump Administration Bolstered by High Employment Rate 
 
 April's jobs report bought positive news for the Trump administration, with the unemployment rate at the lowest since 2007 at 4.4 percent. The report came as the Trump administration pushes on with a health care bill that some Republican lawmakers, and nearly all Democratic lawmakers, oppose. (Published Friday, May 5, 2017) 
 
 After a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused in February to let the travel ban take effect, the administration tweaked the order and issued a new one. 
 
 The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn't apply to those who already have valid visas. It removed language that would give priority to religious minorities and erased Iraq from the list of banned countries. 
 
 GOP Health Care Bill Passes House Vote; Moves to Senate 
 
 A GOP-backed health care reform bill passed House lawmakers by the slim margin of 217 to 213 on Thursday. President Donald Trump praised the American Health Care Act after its house passage, calling it a "repeal and a replace of Obamacare," as it makes it way to the Senate floor. (Published Thursday, May 4, 2017) 
 
 But critics said while the new executive order impacts fewer people, it remains a realization of Trump's promised Muslim ban and cannot stand. 
 
 The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center brought the case on behalf of several organizations, as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries. 
 
 Pelosi, Ryan Make Appeals on Day of Health Care Vote 
 
 The House narrowly voted to pass the Republican health care bill on Thursday, after both House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made impassioned appeals for and against the bill. (Published Thursday, May 4, 2017) 
 
 Elite universities, democratic attorneys general and former foreign policy and national security officials like ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called on the court to block the travel ban. 
 
 Meanwhile, a group of 12 state attorneys general and the governor of Mississippi argued that the action is not a "pretext for religious discrimination" and should be allowed to take effect. 
 
 'Late Night': Closer Look at the GOP Health Care Bill 
 
 Seth Meyers discusses the GOP health care bill and its recent approval by the House. (Published Friday, May 5, 2017) 
 
 Attorneys for the president likely see the moderate 4th Circuit as friendlier territory than the 9th Circuit, which conservatives have long accused of being too liberal. Three 9th Circuit judges appointed by Clinton are scheduled to hear a more-sweeping challenge to Trump's revised travel ban next week. 
 
 While the 4th Circuit was long considered one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country, it moved to the center under Obama, who appointed six of the 15 active judges. 
 
 Two Republican-appointed judges — Judge Allyson K. Duncan and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — didn't hear the travel ban case. Wilkinson's daughter is married to the acting solicitor general. It was not immediately clear why Duncan was recused. ||||| Federal appeals judges cites comments Trump made on the campaign trail in which he promised a ‘total and complete shutdown’ of Muslims entering the US 
 
 Testy exchanges between judges and lawyers over Donald Trump’s travel ban on Monday indicated that the legality of the president’s executive order could be determined by his prior comments about Muslims. 
 
 The pointed questioning came during an appeals court hearing about an executive order Trump issued in March that attempted to halt new visas from six Muslim-majority countries and suspend refugee resettlement in the US. The first order in January was chaotically implemented and blocked by federal courts. The revised order was also blocked by courts in Maryland and Hawaii after judges found grounds for constitutional violations. 
 
 Trump travel ban: federal appeals court hears arguments in crucial next stage Read more 
 
 The Trump administration then appealed these rulings and on Monday faced the next stage in its legal battle during a hearing in front of 13 judges at the fourth circuit of appeals in Virginia. 
 
 Almost immediately, judges questioned the acting US solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, about past statements made by Trump on the campaign trail during the presidential election in which he promised a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the US. 
 
 The comments made by Trump and other remarks about the order that were later made by those in his administration were cited by judges in Maryland and Hawaii as evidence of the order’s animus towards Muslims when the order was blocked in March. 
 
 “This is not a Muslim ban. Its text doesn’t have to anything to do with religion,” Wall argued on Monday as a number of judges peppered him with questions. 
 
 Judge Henry Floyd, a Democratic appointee, asked Wall if there was “anything other than willful blindness” that could prevent the court from interpreting Trump’s prior remarks in connection with the revised order. Judge Robert King, also a Democratic appointee, later added: “He has never repudiated what he said about the Muslim ban. It’s still on his website.” 
 
 Just minutes before the hearing began, the pledge appeared to have been removed from Trump’s campaign website, where it had been since December 2015. 
 
 There was, however, no ruling made by the court on Monday, and experts have suggested that a decision may take a significant amount of time as the en banc hearing (held before a full bench of judges) will probably mean longer deliberations. Such hearings are extremely rare at the initial stages of proceedings and underline the significance of the case. 
 
 Two judges, both appointed by Republican presidents, had recused themselves from Monday’s hearing. Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III recused himself, as Wall is his son-in-law. It was unclear why Judge Allyson Duncan had recused. 
 
 Highlighting the unpredictable nature of the case, Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was also subjected to sharp questioning by judges. The ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center and the International Refugee Assistance Project (Irap) brought the case against the government in Maryland in March. 
 
 Trump travel crackdown turns 'wedding celebration into a family separation' Read more 
 
 Judge Paul Niemeyer, a Republican appointee, appeared to suggest that ruling against the president, who commands large authority over immigration procedure, could be judicial overreach. 
 
 “I don’t know where it ends,” Niemeyer said in the hearing. “It seems to me we have to function in our three branches, and give respect to other branches.” 
 
 Judge Dennis Shedd, also a Republican appointee, asked Jadwat whether he believed Trump’s order would no longer be unconstitutional if, hypothetically, Trump apologised for his remarks on the campaign trail. 
 
 “What if he said he [Trump] was sorry every day for a year?” Shedd asked. 
 
 “It’s possible that saying sorry is not enough. That’s true in a lot of situations, your honour,” Jadwat replied. 
 
 Although the fourth circuit has traditionally been a more conservative court, it has become more moderate in recent years after a series of Barack Obama-era appointments. 
 
 The Maryland injunction against Trump’s revised order applies only to the section preventing visa applications from the six-Muslim majority countries. The Hawaii order is broader and also applies to the attempt to halt refugee resettlement. Arguments in the Hawaii case will be heard by a panel of three federal appeals court judges at the ninth circuit next week. 
 
 During Monday’s hearing, Wall, the acting solicitor general, told the court that the broader ruling in Hawaii had prevented the state department and the homeland security department from conducting further reviews of immigration vetting that the temporary stay on visas had been designed to bring about. 
 
 “Since 16 March, we have complied with the Hawaii injunction and done nothing,” Wall said.
– President Trump's own words have once again come back to haunt attempts to implement his policies. On Monday, a federal appeals court debated whether comments Trump has made about Muslims before and after his election should be considered when ruling on the latest version of his travel ban, NBC San Diego reports. Some of the 13 judges on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel asked Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall about the "total shutdown" of Muslims entering the US that Trump promised on the campaign trail, the Guardian reports. Wall denied that the ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries had anything to do with religion. "This is not a Muslim ban," Wall said of Trump's executive order. "Its text doesn't have ... anything to do with religion." Wall said the order should be judged on the text alone, and Justice Paul Niemeyer, one of three Republican appointees on the panel, appeared to agree, wondering if opponents also want Trump's college speeches to be taken into consideration, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. Just before the hearing began, Trump's December 2015 "shutdown" promise was removed from his campaign website. It's not clear when the Virginia-based court will rule on the travel ban, which was halted in March by judges in Hawaii and Maryland. (Trump words were also used against him in a sanctuary cities case.)