San Diego City Council Will Be Asked If It Wants To Support Lawsuit Against Trump's Travel Ban

Our top story on KPBS Midday Edition, the United States Department of justice is reviewing the legal options in light of yesterday's defeat in the ninth circuit. The panel upheld the state, blocking enforcement of the presidents travel ban. If the ruling is appealed, the city attorney says the city may join in a friend of the court brief against the travel ban. They will consider that next week. Joining me with more about the next steps is Glenn Smith, and law professor, welcome back. Thank you. It is good to be here. What is your opinion of the most important aspect of the ruling? I would have to say that most important rule of law was in those dictate -- it was vindicated. Whether it is constitutional or not, we had a circumstance where major issues were raised and judges issued rulings and the rulings were followed reluctantly. They were followed. From the standpoint of a constitutional crisis that could've been created if the administration had refused to recognize the order, that is the most important part of this. Falling the ruling, he tweeted see you in court. It is unclear what the administration -- He did not say which court pick Exactly. What options does the administration have? One option is to follow the adage that discretion is the better part of valor and go back to the lower court judge and argue about the court order or narrow and limit the order to make it more acceptable. If they continue in the appeal, they can appeal to the full ninth circuit panel where they would likely get the same result or they could appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which does not like to get involved in these preliminary issues when the laws of the state applies -- they apply. They preach -- appeal to the Supreme Court yes. This is not a decision on merits. Often when there are hardships from a change in government policies, it serves an important is true -- interest, the courts have to decide who is likely to win. Were not share -- same for sure. This is about stopping the ordered from going forward and handing a fuller analysis of the issues will. I heard that he could stop a long legal fight by drawing up a new executive order on a travel ban that is more focused and more likely to pass scrutiny. Is that the case? That is the case. This was a self-inflicted wound to begin with. There was not the usual consultation. I think had that happen, they would have produced a narrow order. They can go back in there the order. What -- the better arguments in this case are about, it is about legal residents and people who are here lawfully and legitimately who had the rug pulled out from under them. They have special claims to due process of law and notice and hearing. Were talking about people who have no content -- connection to the country and may have national security concerns. He does have more power there. At the limit the order -- I hope they do. If they limit the order to those particular concerns and try to assuage the concerns that there is not adequate procedure, that would go a long way towards eliminating -- about the controversy, the legal uphill battle that they face with the current order. If yesterday's ruling is appealed, I mentioned that San Diego is considered -- considering signing onto a legal brief opposing the Van. The city attorney said the travel ban has consequences were San Diego and our border economy and innovations and our voice to be heard. What sort of weight to these advocates brain? Washington and Minnesota are -- they argue similar claims. This would be a further indication that the injuries to the residents and our city are widespread. The briefs are probably making the most impact so far are the briefs from former secretaries of state and companies that talk about the impact on Silicon Valley, etc. When the court hears from a broad array of bipartisan people saying we do not agree about everything but this goes too far, I think that helps to make an impact and helps to explain why we have had judges weigh in on this and to our pop is appointed either Republicans -- to our appointed by Republicans. It lends a show the flag -- show the court that the issue is not a typical Republican and Democrat or liberal/-- conservative divide. We have a new attorney general. What might his role playing this? Back he has ultimate -- authority over this. What they argue -- he should be in a position to play a role in will we rewrite the order or how will they change the way they argue it or what kind of evidence are they willing to put in about national security risks? He should weigh in on those issues. One hopes that the attorney general will serve the purpose which they usually do, which is too cool things down and bring a more objective legal argument to what can be a political discussion in the White House. I have been speaking with Glenn Smith. Thank you.