Donald Trump's campaign removes 'preventing Muslim immigration' statement from website

Wall argued that the order should be judged for its text specifically, rather than Trump's past statements.

A week later, a Seattle-based U.S. District Judge James Robart blocked implementation of the order. It was unclear why Judge Allyson Duncan had recused.

JOHNSON: Well, the - one of the judges, Judge Robert King, said the most important issue in the case is President Trump's statements.

"Can we look at his college speeches?" Here's acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall arguing for the government. In fact, as Powerline puts it, "The only thing wrong with Trump's travel ban is Trump". "Its text doesn't have anything to do with religion. Its operation doesn't have anything to do with religion".

President Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the country has finally been removed from his campaign website - 17 months after it was first published, and minutes after a reporter asked the White House why the page was still up.

The groups, represented by the Americans Civil Liberties Union, must prove specific people were harmed by the order, known as legal standing, leading to a tough line of questioning for the plaintiffs from Republican appointee Judge G. Steven Agee. "There has to be some deference" to the president's decisions about national security, he added.

Thirteen members of the appeals court heard the case, bypassing the normal first step of a hearing before a three-judge panel of the court.

But 42 former national security officials filed their own court brief to disagree. Trump is seeking to temporarily stop the issuance of new visas from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and suspend all refugees from entering the United States.

Sometimes "saying sorry is not enough", the ACLU lawyer said.

Several courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against the order.

The losing side can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Associated Press reporter Sarah Rankin contributed to this report.

Copyright 2017 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Judge Niemeyer went on to pose hypothetical scenarios in which the exact same order was adopted by a president who had no history of making such statements.

This is the first time the revised 90-day travel ban will be heard before an appeals court. The White House, literally, wants to pretend the statement never happened.

Note, however, the telltale URL which includes the forbidden words "preventing Muslim immigration".

NPR's Carrie Johnson has been covering the case.

CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Good morning, Rachel.

Does the executive order illegally target Muslims? Wynn said. "There was sort of a wink and a nod".

Yates revealed that she had not been told about the travel ban order in response to a question from Sen.

The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding worldwide flights and detained at airports for hours. This initially included Green Card holders - permanent legal United States citizens. "Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?" Citizens from the three most populous Muslim majority countries in the world are still free to travel to the US, making the idea of a "Muslim ban" ridiculous. It also restricted refugee admissions for 120 days.

Chuang, in Maryland, blocked the part of Trump's order relating to travel by people from the six countries. The attorney said the president's remarks should be viewed by the court in ways that are "not most hostile to the president".

But soon he had to respond a question and elaborate on the reason why Trump's campaign website still contains the statement on Muslim ban.

Jadwat said it is the duty of the courts to make sure the establishment clause is real. He said the administration is not discriminating against any religion and has no intent to discriminate.

MARTIN: What about the idea, though, that the president - any president - has a lot of power when it comes to protecting the country's borders and ports of entry?

That argument has been undermined not just by Trump, but by a number of his associates.

"It is highly irregular for the Office of Legal Counsel to keep the attorney general's office in the dark with regard to an analysis of a policy proposal that is as explosive as the travel ban", Fresco said. He said national security experts had said there was no need for shutting off new arrivals from the six countries.

"The question in this case is what is the objective of the order, whether it's legitimate or not", Mr. Jadwat said.

"How long does that taint last?" asked Judge Albert Diaz. But this argument does not signal the end of the road.

MARTIN: NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson.