Sponsored link
Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Sponsored link

Federal appeals court hears immigration-ban case

Hard to tell which side the judges favored, but Trump's lawyer had a harder time making his case

A federal appeals court heard arguments via telephone for and against the federal judge’s temporary restraining order blocking the President Trump’s banning  of most travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations.

Protesters stood outside the courthouse in the rain as three judges peppered lawyers from the Trump Administration and the state of Washington with questions.

The questioning didn’t easily signal which side the panel would take, but Trump’s lawyer seemed to have more trouble with his answers.

In particular, he was unable to clearly explain what delaying the implementation of the order would case the administration or the country and immediate and irreparable harm.

Trump signed the executive Jan. 27, banning travelers from seven-Muslim majority countries. 

The hearing had Noah G. Purcell, Solicitor General of the state of Washington, trying to convince the Ninth Circuit panel that it should keep the temporary restraining order in place. August E Flentje, a lawyer representing the Department of Justice, argued that the stay should be lifted. Purcell argued religious discrimination and harm caused by the ban to students and employees.

Outside the court, a handful of people gathered  ahead of the hearing to protest the travel ban .

Christine Pearce and her father David Pearce at the protest outside appeals court. Mr. Pearce travelled from napa valley to join the protest. Photo by Sana Saleem.

In the past weeks, hundreds have gathered at the airport and taken to the streets to demand that the ban be lifted immediately. 

The court is expected to rule quickly.

Sana Saleem
Sana Saleem
Sana Saleem is a writer with a focus on social justice and human stories. She's member board of advisory for the Courage Foundation, Edward Snowden's legal defense fund.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Sponsored link

Sponsored link
Sponsored link

Latest

For more than half a century, the progressives in SF have been right—and the developers wrong

We have murals and books and movies celebrating the opponents of demolitions like the I-Hotel and redevelopment. What will we look back on 20 years from now?

Comedowns are for losers: New Year’s Day parties 2026

Don't flag out once the ball drops: From Breakfast of Champions to Supper of Survivors, we've got your marathon revels covered.

PG&E offers more excuses, and will seek to delay and obfuscate over public power

Public power is cheaper, more reliable, and would make money for the city. Just look at the numbers

Drama Masks: Year on Stage 2025, part 1—the not-so-great stuff

A year of devastating cuts, wild uncertainty, and unexpected departures left its mark on the SF scene.

You might also likeRELATED