[Michael Holmes, Cnn Anchor:] And a warm welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Michael Holmes.
[Lynda Kinkade, Cnn Anchor:] Hello. And I'm Lynda Kinkade. It is 1 AM on the US East Coast. That's 6 AM in London. Thanks for being with us. Now, we start this hour with breaking news in the US. The US Justice Department has just filed an appeal to reverse a US District Court's judge's suspension of President Donald Trump's travel ban. Now, that appeal has been filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the case.
[Holmes:] The three judges, who might hear that case, were actually appointed separately by former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. CNN US justice reporter Laura Jarrett is with us on the phone now from Washington. Laura, you've been going through this. Tell us the main points of it.
[Laura Jarrett, Cnn Us Justice Reporter:] Well, Lynda and Michael, this is a strongly worded legal filing. Just after midnight here on the East Coast, the US Justice Department moved for what's called an emergency stay of the sweeping decision out of Seattle that temporarily halted the enforcement of President Trump's travel ban on a nationwide basis. And in this legal filing, the Justice Department says that blocking the travel ban "harms the public and second guesses the president's national security judgment." The thrust of the argument here being made by the Justice Department are two different prongs. The first one is that the plaintiffs in the case, which were the case was brought by the Washington State Attorney General and Minnesota. They're saying the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue here. They haven't been harmed in a way that allows you to get in the court. The second argument is that the president's authority in this area is sweeping and quite broad. And so, he can basically do what he wants in this area of immigration in an unreviewable way. The court doesn't have an authority to review him. So, it's a pretty strongly worded legal filing we're seeing right now from the Justice Department.
[Kinkade:] And the Justice Department is, of course, calling for it to be immediate. How quickly could it happen?
[Jarrett:] Well, it's hard to say. It was just filed less than an hour ago and it's unclear yet whether the other side, Washington State, will have an opportunity to respond. There is a motions panel set up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that can hear these types of cases by phone. And so, they may do it very quickly, as early as tomorrow.
[Holmes:] The other wording, as we go through this, as you say, it does talk about the president's national security judgment second guesses the president's national security judgment. But, also, it says that the ban contravenes the constitutional separation of powers. What does it mean by that?
[Jarrett:] The idea there is that Congress gave the president the ability to do this. And by a different branch of government, in this case the judiciary branch, intervening in that authority, they're saying, is improper. They're saying the president is able to do this because Congress let him do it.
[Kinkade:] It certainly is a fascinating outcome. We will see whether there is a decision tomorrow. Laura Jarrett, great to have you with us. Thank you so much.
[Holmes:] It's only really just getting underway now, this fight one way or the other, and it could end up in the Supreme Court as we've been hearing. Troy Slaten joining us from Los Angeles, legal analyst, criminal defense attorney. I'm guessing you've had a quick read of part of the language. You'll have heard Laura there, what's your take on this? [1:05:00]
[Troy Slaten, Cnn Legal Analyst:] Well, I'm a little bit surprised that it took the United States Justice Department this long to file this appeal. They should have this ready to go a while ago and that leads me to believe that there was some sort of disagreement within the Justice Department as to what was going to be their basis for asking for a stay of this temporary restraining order.
[Kinkade:] What other options do they have?
[Slaten:] What options did the Justice Department had? I mean, really nothing. The president was saying you need to do this and the Justice Department well, as far as they had several options as to what their legal argument was going to be. I don't think they really had a choice as to whether or not they were going to file for this stay on the temporary restraining order.
[Holmes:] So, what you're saying is that you get the sense that they weren't really ready with an argument early enough. What do you make of the argument that they're saying that the district court ruling barring enforcement of ban contravenes the constitutional separation of powers, harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an executive order issued by the nation's elected representatives and so on? Is that a good argument?
[Slaten:] It is. I think that the two arguments that they made are very good and they're really the most common arguments that you would make sort of in a situation like this. The first argument being whether or not the plaintiffs, being the State of Washington, even has standing to bring this type of lawsuit. And a standing, for all the folks at home, is really a threshold issue. It's whether you have a right to go to the courthouse steps to make this argument. So, the Justice Department is saying that they're not even a proper party because they're not the individuals, they're not the entity that would be harmed by this. And the other argument is also a very strong one. It's true, the president of the United States has plenary power in this area. The United States Congress, under the Constitution, has the right has the authority to regulate immigration and they passed laws giving the president of United States the authority to implement those laws with regard to the Customs and Border Protection, the CBP, and it's interesting that the Department of Homeland Security very quickly reacted when the court in the Ninth Circuit, Judge Robart issued this temporary restraining order. The Department of Homeland Security said immediately we're going to obey that. And now, this just causes so much confusion into the entire system. But I think that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to act very quickly to either implement a stay or sustain the restraining order.
[Kinkade:] So, what is the process now. Three judges from the Ninth Circuit will look at this argument. What considerations do they need to make?
[Slaten:] They need to decide whether or not the plaintiffs, here the State of Washington, has a reasonable likelihood of success and whether or not they would be irreparably harmed if this temporary restraining order stayed in place. And I think that, you know, looking at the precedent for the Ninth Circuit, some people in legal community call it the Ninth Circus, it's a very liberal circuit. It's the most overturned by the United States Supreme Court. And two of the three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. As you mentioned, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama appointed two out of the three. The other being by President George W. Bush.
[Holmes:] So, one imagines that the confusion could just continue all the way to the Supreme Court. Would it be a situation that the ban is implemented, the court in Seattle gets it paused, "so, OK, everybody can come again." If the Ninth Circuit upholds the government side of things, the ban goes back on and everyone has to stop again. And then, there is another appeal and it works its way up to Supreme Court. People aren't going to know whether they should get on a plane or not. Is that fair?
[Slaten:] Well, I mean, of course, it's not fair to those wanting to travel.
[Holmes:] I mean, is that a fair sort of statement of what's likely to happen. It's on, it's off, it's on, it's off.
[Slaten:] Absolutely. But because it is a matter of such importance, the Ninth Circuit is going to act on this quickly. They know that the world is watching. So, I imagine that we could get a decision possibly today, Super Bowl Sunday, and the Ninth Circuit has procedures for dealing with emergency appeals like this and they could come up with their decision any moment. And if whatever party doesn't like it, it's likely to appeal it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court could take it up rather quickly.
[Holmes:] And it could end up in a 4-4 tie.
[Kinkade:] Yes. That's going to be a bit of a mess too.
[Slaten:] So, in that case, if it's a 4-4 tie, the lower court decision stands.
[Kinkade:] Right. So, the Seattle ruling at present would stand.
[Slaten:] Well, no. Whatever the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision is what stands.
[Kinkade:] Right, right.
[Holmes:] Wow. Troy, thank you so much helping us understand that. Of course, we've got to assume that the justices won't be watching the Super Bowl and will be focused on this.
[Slaten:] Hopefully.
[Holmes:] Yes. Troy Slaten in Los Angeles, thanks so much.
[Slaten:] Thank you.
[Kinkade:] Well, President Trump's travel has sparked nationwide protests, almost before the ink was dry on his executive order. Those demonstrations include outside the Florida resort where Mr. Trump is spending the weekend.
[Holmes:] CNN's Jessica Schneider is in Palm Beach, Florida and has the latest for us from there.
[Jessica Schneider, Cnn National Correspondent:] Out here at Mar-a- Lago, a day of legal wranglings, a Twitter tirade by President Donald Trump and also protesters. Take a look at some of the remnants out here. At one point, several hundred people making their march as close as they could get to Mar-a-Lago. A mostly peaceful protest, but very similar to the ones that we've been seeing over the past two weeks and the past three weekends. These people wanting to get their message directly to the president or as close as they could get now that he's down here and what they're calling the winter White House. As far as President Trump goes, he took to Twitter numerous times over the day sticking to his contention that his executive order as it pertains to that immigration ban was lawful, was constitutional and even slamming the federal judge on Seattle several times. In fact, Donald Trump taking to Twitter, I'll read you a few of his posts, saying "The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interest at heart. Bad people are very happy." And earlier in the day, President Trump tweeting out this. "The opinion of this so-called judge which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country is ridiculous and will be overturned." Jessica Schneider, CNN, Palm Beach, Florida.
[Holmes:] Now, those tweets that Jessica mentioned there were ridiculed to Washington's governor as beneath the dignity of the presidency. Earlier, before the appeal was filed by the US Justice Department, Gov. Jay Inslee spoke about the importance of the legal challenge his state brought against the president's executive order.
[Jay Inslee, Governor Of The State Of Washington:] President can tweet till the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is he is bound by this order. It is a legally binding order and he is going to have to follow it. That's the way our system of checks and balances work. And he asked this question about lawyers. His lawyers are telling him the facts. They're telling him that this is the way America works because, in America, when an executive does something that's unconstitutional, thank goodness we have a federal judicial system that can rein that in and that's what this judge did. And by the way, this was a judge this insult of him this was a judge appointed by a conservative Republican George W. Bush. He was confirmed with a 99 to 0 vote in the Senate. This is the way democracy is meant to work.
[Kinkade:] Well, that travel ban has set off a wave of protests right across the world, even near Mr. Trump's front door.
[Holmes:] They've been marching in West Palm Beach, Florida, not far from his Mar-a-Lago resort where he is spending the weekend. Supporters of the president and the travel ban also spotted in the crowds. And in Washington, hundreds walked from the White House to the US Capitol on Saturday with a banner saying, no ban, no wall.
[Kinkade:] Protesters also gathered in front of the Eiffel Tower in Paris. An American there says she's speaking out because this is not what her country stands her.
[Unidentified Protester:] Being an American, I care about my country and I care about how we are portrayed and are seen from other countries. And I think that we need to be careful of what we're doing right now. We have French organizers on our team who've been of a huge help. And it's been amazing. If you see the crowd, people keep coming. So, I think people are ready to fight back and to organize. We're not mourning anymore. We're organizing.
[Kinkade:] Well, after the breaks, new protests against President Trump's travel ban.
[Holmes:] More on how the Trump administration is defending that ban. Just ahead, also tensions rising between the US and Iran.
[Kinkade:] Next, how Iran is responding to new US sanctions.