You're listening to Bloomberg Law. The legal fight over President Trump's proposed travel ban is about to heat is about to heat back up. Two federal appeals courts are poised to review the executive order, which would temporarily halt entry into the US by people from six mostly Muslim nations. The first of those arguments takes place in just about an hour and a half at the fourth Fourth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Bloomberg News reporter
Andrew Harris is outside the courthouse in Richmond for the argument. Uh, and he will. He's here with us to provide a preview. Andy, Thanks for taking the time. Um, the president generally has very broad power to determine who can come into the country, but two federal judges have blocked this policy. Tell us what the argument is against this proposed travel ban, well, Gregg.
The argument goes all the way back to the days when Donald Trump was still a candidate for president of the United States, and they talked about imposing a full on Islam ban uh for a traveler entry into the US were he to become president. And he wasn't the only one that said something like that. UH, some of his UH associates and advisors said similar things, and by the time the first executive order was released on Januar it was why we perceived as following through on that promise,
regardless of what it actually said on the printed paper. Well, so how is the how are the government lawyers going to try to get around this? I mean, the record on what the president and his advisor said about this is pretty clear, and the judge seemed to rely on it pretty heavily below Well, Greg, that's been a real problem for the administration. They struck out on the first executive order because they could not persuade the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco that this wasn't a Muslim ban.
So they went back to the drawing board and they came back with way more robust version where they laid out the wise and ware forces to why the people that they wanted to keep out growth specific countries needed to be kept out for at least ninety days while
they enhanced their vetting procedures. And the argument they're going to make to the court is that that's the reason, and that the judges are required to follow woods on the printed page and not look behind it at something, then candidate Trump said before we took the oath of office.
Any there's been a lot of talk about the political significance of this case, the impact on people who might want to be coming into the US, But um, what do you see as sort of the broader significance of the legal issues that are are coming before the court, in particular when it comes to the power of the president. Well, that's kind of the irony here, Greg. This Muslim ban or whatever the administration wants to call it, was for a ninety day duration. There was a longer hundred twenty
day freeze on refugees entering the country. So this is going to be a temporary a measure by its own terms. What it's not going to be so temporary is this fight over presidential power and the court's ability to look behind an executive order to see what the president really meant as opposed to what he said. And that's going
to be with us for a long time. And one of the things that's unusual about what we're gonna see in court here is it the full circuit is going to hear it without having had a panel review at first. Do you think that bodes better or worse for the government. UM, difficult to say. A couple of Republican judges who would have been on the panel if all fifteen active judges are hearing this will not be. One of them a Reagan appointee j. Harvey Wilkinson, another a bushop pointee Alice
and Duncan. So the remaining court is made up of seven Democratic appointees, three Republican appointees, and three judges who in their careers have been appointed direct federal courts position by either a Democrat and hell by both Democrat at and Republican presidents. So it's skewing Democratic and appointees. But that's no guarantee of an outcome. And he would just
have about a minute left. But can you just sort of lay out of maybe a timeline for us or at least, you know, sort of discuss what will happen next. You have two federal judges who have issued orders blocking this UH. Does the Trump administration essentially have to win both the cases before both appeals courts in order to
get this this UH travel ban into effect. Well, as you know, Greg, typically a circuit split, winning at least one of them would probably ensure US Supreme Court review given the gravity of the issues before the courts in this case, it is at least theoretically possible, also given the composition of the the U. S. Supreme Court, and that the court decides to take up the issue, even if the administration goes over to here and at the Cuderal
Appeals Court in San Francisco next Monday. Okay, I think I think we're gonna be talking more about this, Andy, Thank you so much. Andy Harris Bloomberg bloom a news reporter. He's outside the Federal Courthouse in Richmond, where at two thirty East Coast time today, the Federal Appeals Court is going to hear arguments on Donald Trump's proposed travel ban