Trump's lawyer gets pounded by judges with questions about 'Muslim ban' as he fights for travel restrictions to be put back in place - and says White House will take ANY part of the ban being reinstated

• e-mail

President Donald Trump's administration says its temporary restrictions on citizens of seven terror-afflicted countries are not the equivalent of a Muslim ban - but justices on a federal bench reviewing the executive order indicated Tuesday that they're not buying it.

Judges wanted to know whether the executive branch believes that Trump could bar Muslims from entering the country if he wanted.

Judges wanted to know if the executive branch believes that President Trump could bar Muslims from entering the country.'That's not what the order does here,' said DOJ lawyer August E. Flentje

'That's not what the order does here,' August E. Flentje, a career Department of Justice lawyer arguing on behalf of the president, repeatedly said.

If it did, an American citizen would have standing to challenge it, Flentje told Ninth Circuit justices, but that 'is a far cry from that situation.'

Flentje asked the court to 'immediately' lift a judge's injunction on Trump's executive order as he went head-to-head against two states.

At the very least, he said, the government should reinstate the part of Trump's order 'that applies outside the boundaries of the US and extends beyond people who are in the US or who have been in the US.'

That would basically prevent Syrians who are not already permanent legal residents of the United States or green card holders from receiving documents that would allow them to enter the country.

The same goes for citizens of six other majority-Muslim countries that Trump wants to keep from coming to the United States for the next 90 days. Those countries are Somolia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Iran and Sudan. The ban on immigration from Syria is indefinite.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO 

President Donald Trump's administration says its temporary restrictions on citizens of seven terror-afflicted countries are not the equivalent of a Muslim ban - but justices on a federal bench reviewing the executive order indicated Tuesday that they're not buying it. Above are two of the three justices: Richard Clifton, left, and William Canby, right

Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether the government has any evidence connecting the seven predominantly Muslim nations covered by the ban to terrorism. Flentje said the government is aware of some foreign nationals who have been arrested in the U.S. since Sept. 11, but he did not give details of the evidence

In its argument before the court, DOJ stressed that Trump's order is a temporary 'pause so that the screening process could immediately be reviewed to ensure that it's adequate.' The White House has indicated that it could be extended, and other countries could be added to the existing list, however.

Flentje told judges that Trump's actions were 'plainly constitutional.'

Even more, the two states bringing the suit, Washington and Minnesota, have no standing, he said, to claim harm on behalf of their residents.

The hearing before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges was the greatest legal challenge yet to the ban, which has upended travel to the U.S. for more than a week and tested the new administration's use of executive power.

The government asked the court to restore Trump's order, contending that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States. 

Judges — two Democratic appointees and one Republican — repeatedly questioned Flentje on why the states should not be able to sue on behalf of their residents or on behalf of their universities, which have complained about students and faculty getting stranded overseas.

When the Flentje suggested that individuals might be able to sue, rather than the state, Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether there would be any point in waiting for individuals to come forward rather than considering the merits of the case brought by the states.

Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also asked whether the government has any evidence connecting the seven predominantly Muslim nations covered by the ban to terrorism.

Flentje said the government is aware of some foreign nationals who have been arrested in the U.S. since Sept. 11, but he did not give details of the evidence.

He also said president has broad power to enforce national security and the district court shouldn't have interfered with that.

'The president is the official that is charged with making those judgments,' he said.

Demonstrators rally against Trump in Los Angeles on Tuesday. DOJ says Trump's actions were 'plainly constitutional' but his travel ban has many people upse

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who on Friday temporarily blocked Trump's order, has said a judge's job is to ensure that an action taken by the government 'comports with our country's laws.' 

The court was not expected to rule immediately, with a decision more likely to come later this week, court spokesman David Madden said.

Whatever the court eventually decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

A lawyer challenging the ban said that halting the executive order has not harmed the U.S. government.

Instead, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell told the panel, the order had harmed state residents by splitting up families, holding up students trying to travel to study and preventing people from visiting family abroad.

Judge Richard R. Clifton said he suspects it's a 'small fraction' of the state's residents.   

Trump said Tuesday that he can't believe his administration has to fight in the courts to uphold his refugee and immigration ban, a policy he says will protect the country.

'And a lot of people agree with us, believe me,' Trump said at a roundtable discussion with members of the National Sheriff's Association. 'If those people ever protested, you'd see a real protest. But they want to see our borders secure and our country secure.'

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told lawmakers that the order likely should have been delayed at least long enough to brief Congress about it.

The filing with the appeals court was the latest salvo in a high-stakes legal fight surrounding Trump's order, which suspends the country's refugee program and immigration from countries with terrorism concerns.

Washington state, Minnesota and other states say the appellate court should allow Robart's temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban to stand as their lawsuit moves through the legal system. 

The appeals court over the weekend refused to immediately reinstate the ban, and lawyers for Washington and Minnesota argued anew on Monday that any resumption would 'unleash chaos again,' separating families and stranding university students.

The Justice Department responded that the president has clear authority to 'suspend the entry of any class of aliens' to the U.S. in the name of national security. 

It said the travel ban was intended 'to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks.'

The challengers of the ban were asking 'courts to take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the president himself,' the Justice Department wrote.

It's possible that the panel could make a ruling on a technical point, rather than the larger merits of the case. Under 9th Circuit case law, temporary restraining orders cannot be appealed, a point noted by the states.

An analysis on that point would include examining whether the lower court's order is properly classified as a temporary restraining order rather than as another type of order, a preliminary injunction, noted Arthur Hellman, a federal courts scholar at University of Pittsburgh Law School.

If the case does end up before the Supreme Court, it could prove difficult to find the necessary five votes to undo a lower court order. The Supreme Court has been at less than full strength since Justice Antonin Scalia's death a year ago. The last immigration case that reached the justices ended in a 4-4 tie.

How and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before a higher court takes up the issue. Or the administration could change it in any number of ways that would keep the issue alive.

After Robart's ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S.