The Supreme Court heard arguments on President Donald Trump’s travel ban which restricts travel from five Muslim majority countries, plus North Korea and Venezuela.
“It didn’t just create fear and distrust among Muslims, it created chaos,” Rep. Judy Chu (D-California) said.
Rep. Chu joined protesters outside the Supreme Court.
Inside, the president’s case was argued by Solicitor General Noel Francisco.
“This is not a so-called Muslim ban if it were it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine.”
Francisco says it’s an issue of national security and most of the Muslim world continues to travel to the U.S.
This is the third version of the travel ban.
The State of Hawaii argued the ban is discriminatory, violates the constitution and conflicts with immigration laws passed by congress.
Some the questions during arguments centered around whether comments by candidate Trump about Muslims should be taken into account when deciding this case.
“Suppose you have a local mayor and as a candidate, he makes vituperative hateful statements. He gets elected and on day two he takes acts that are consistent with those hateful statements. Whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?” Justice Anthony Kennedy said.
Neal Katyal represents Hawaii and says after taking office, President Trump has repeated, tweeted and embraced anti-Muslim sentiments.
“Can we have a president that says in the terms he has, things like a complete and total shutdown of Muslim immigration should happen,” Katyal said.
Katyal says that question will be settled by the court’s decision.