US judges focus on discrimination, Trump's powers on travel ban case

US appeals court judges on Monday questioned the lawyer defending US President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban about whether it discriminates against Muslims and pressed challengers to explain why the court should not defer to Trump's presidential powers to set the policy.

The three-judge 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel was the second court in a week to review Trump's directive banning people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries.

Opponents - including the state of Hawaii and civil rights groups – have said that both Trump's first ban and later revised ban discriminate against Muslims. The government argues that the text of the order does not mention any specific religion and is needed to protect the country against attacks.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked a Justice Department lawyer whether Trump had “ever disavowed his campaign statements,” and Judge Ronald M. Gould inquired about how the court should determine if the executive order was “a Muslim ban in the guise of a national security justification.”

Judge Richard Paez pointed out that many of Trump's statements about Muslims came "during the midst of a highly contentious (election) campaign." He asked if that should be taken into account when deciding how much weight they should be given in reviewing the travel ban's constitutionality.

Paez did, however, deem the campaign trail comments “profound.”

Neal Katyal, an attorney for Hawaii which is opposing the ban, said the evidence goes beyond Trump's campaign statements.

"The government has not engaged in mass, dragnet exclusions in the past 50 years," Katyal said. "This is something new and unusual in which you're saying this whole class of people, some of whom are dangerous, we can ban them all."

The Justice Department argues Trump issued his order solely to protect national security.

Outside the Seattle courtroom a group of protesters gathered carrying signs with slogans including, "The ban is still racist" and "No ban, no wall."

Trump's attempt to limit travel was one of his first major acts in office. The travel ban — key sections of which have been frozen by two courts — tried to temporarily shut down the US refu­gee programme and suspend the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries.

The first executive order, issued on 27 January, led to chaos and protests at airports before it was blocked by courts. The second order was intended to overcome the legal problems posed by the original ban, but it was also suspended by judges before it could take effect on 16 March.