Return to Transcripts main page
Department of Homeland Security Says It Will Not Implement President Trump's Order After a Federal Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order; Does the Constitution Apply For Some Of The People That Fall Under This Travel Ban?; Demonstrators Are Marching and Rallying Around The World Today In Opposition to President Trump's Travel Ban; Protesters Want U.K. To Call Off Trump State Visit. Aired 11-12p ET
Aired February 4, 2017 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00] BORIS SANCHEZ, HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: - for joining me today. I'm Boris Sanchez in for Fredricka Whitfield. We begin with breaking news. Just minutes ago, the Department of Homeland Security saying that it will not implement President Trump's order banning citizens from seven Muslim majority countries from entering the US. The statement reading, "DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the executive order." It goes on to say, "This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the executive order." A State Department official also tells CNN it is reversing the cancellation of thousands of provisionally revoked visas.
CNN national correspondent Ryan Nobles is covering all of this and joins me now from Washington. Ryan, a lot to break down here. What does all of this mean?
RYAN NOBLES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Boris, really a flurry of activity here in Washington. And it's really the first response that we're getting from the federal government responding to this order that was put down by a judge in Washington State late yesterday afternoon. And essentially what we're seeing is that these agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, as you mentioned, and the State Department are abiding by the judge's ruling. They're essentially going back to ground zero where we were before the executive order was issued.
So, we had a week where some 60,000 visas were revoked from the seven Muslim majority countries. And now, the State Department is saying that they are canceling that revocation, which is a double negative, I understand, but essentially saying that those visas are good to go. Now, the one wrinkle to this is if you do have one of those visas and it was physically revoked, if it was stamped or was taken away at a custom station, you will have to reapply for a visa. So, there will be some lag time involved in that.
Now, even though these federal agencies are complying with the judge's order, that doesn't necessarily mean that the White House is pleased with this. In fact, we know the White House isn't. The president who is at Mar-a-Lago, his estate in South Florida today, tweeting this morning his reaction to the judge's ruling and he said, "The opinion of this so-called judge which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country is ridiculous and will be overturned." And this is a pretty startling response from the president of the United States, Boris. This is the president calling into question the legitimacy of a sitting federal judge. This was someone who was appointed by a Republican, George W. Bush, back in 2003. He was also confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 99 to nothing. So, there's no questioning his legitimacy. And this order that he put in place is certainly taking effect and those federal agencies are responding.
But the White House has made it clear that this legal fight is far from over. Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, releasing a statement yesterday saying that, "At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the executive order of the president, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. The president's order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people."
And I should also point out Boris that the statement from the Department of Homeland Security that you read earlier goes on to say that the Department of Homeland Security believes that the order is legal and is necessary to keep Americans safe.
So, what we're seeing here Boris is really the front end of what could be a lengthy and perhaps bitter legal battle between the Trump administration and some state attorneys general and also just average citizens that were impacted by this executive order that could play out over a lengthy period of time. And, Boris, the ultimate decider could be the United States Supreme Court. And keep in mind that there is an open vacancy on that court right now that President Trump is trying to fill. So, who knows if perhaps this legal battle plays out in the confirmation process of Judge Neil Gorsuch.
SANCHEZ: Certainly, a lot of questions about what happens next. We'll get to those in a second. Ryan, I did want to ask you about that White House statement because there were two statements put out last night. Almost identical, except in the second one, there was a change in language, right?
NOBLES: Yes, which is interesting given what the president tweeted this morning. So, the initial statement that was put out by the White House included the word outrageous when they were talking about the executive - or the order that was handed down by that judge in Washington State. But about 12 minutes later, they put out a new statement and the word outrageous was removed. So, you know, some theorizing that perhaps the White House not wanting to so kind of blatantly confront this judge because, ultimately, it's going to be the judicial branch that makes the final call on this executive order. But then you have the president himself coming out this morning and referring to the judge as a so-called judge. So, that, in many respects, takes the wind out of that theory. But, yes, interesting machinations from the White House here over the last 24 hours for sure.
SANCHEZ: Yes. It may seem trivial that they took out the word outrageous. But, obviously, they thought it was important enough that they put out almost an identical statement just 12 minutes later, taking out that word. Ryan Nobles, thank you so much. I'm sure we will check in with you later on this hour.
[11:05:00] We turn now to CNN aviation and government regulation correspondent Rene Marsh. Rene, Customs and Border Patrol has told the airlines that it's back to business as usual. Is that the case?
RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, I do want to say, was able to get an internal memo that was sent from a trade association, IATA, to its members. It is a trade association for all of the world's major airlines. And, again, so they received this memo that CNN has been able to obtain and it details the guidance that CBP gave to airlines. And part of that guidance is, and I'm quoting now, CBP telling airlines to "operate as if the executive order never existed." Again, that was the guidance from Customs and Border Protection to all of these major airlines. So, what we're seeing today is airlines reacting to that guidance. They're no longer telling people that they cannot get on planes if they have a valid visa.
I saw on Twitter, a lawyer who has been - an immigration lawyer who had been working with several individuals who had been impacted by this travel ban, tweeting out just a couple of hours ago, very happy that Customs and Border Protection was indeed enforcing the latest court order - so that's the court order out of Seattle - and allowing individuals with visas and green cards to board planes.
So, if we take it back just to yesterday, this all started, obviously, with that ruling from the Seattle judge and then Customs and Border Protection at a conference call with all of the major US carriers essentially telling them that they were no longer going to be operating under that executive order and that visas would start to be reinstated. However, here's the caveat. Anyone who did not have their visa physically revoked or physically canceled, they should be fine. They should be able to get on board an aircraft. However, the State Department says if their visas were physically canceled, that process may take a little bit longer.
SANCHEZ: Right. Rene, on a practical level, how does this work? Do they just go into a computer and change some kind of digital mechanism that allows these visas to be scanned or is it much more complex than that?
MARSH: The glory of this day and age is a lot of this stuff is done electronically. So, when you show up in an airport, in many cases, especially for the US carriers, your travel documents are scanned by a computer system. And also, the system knows and is able to reflect who should be able to board a plane and who should not be able to board a plane. So, effective immediately, basically, according to the guidance from Customs and Border Protection, if an individual does have a valid visa and you show up at an airport, the message should say that the individual is allowed to board. They should not get a no board message. Again, that's only for people who didn't physically have their visas revoked.
SANCHEZ: A complicated legal situation. Rene Marsh, thank you so much. While the legal fallout of this reversal is enormous, the political fallout also escalating. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer just issued this statement a few moments ago. The president's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration.
Joining us now to talk more about this is Julian Zelizer. He's a historian and professor at Princeton University. And CNN political commentator David Swerdlick, he's also an editor at the Washington Post. And also with us, constitutional attorney, Page Pate.
David, let's start with you. Sen. Chuck Schumer invoking President Trump's recent nominee for the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch. Trump's tweet also referring to Judge Robart, referring to him as a so-called judge. He was appointed by the last Republican President George W. Bush back in 2003. Does this remind you of Trump's attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge that was presiding over the Trump University case when he questioned his objectivity?
DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It does, Boris. Right. Your viewers will recall that back during the campaign, President Trump implied that Judge Curiel could not do his job and rule fairly in the Trump University fraud case because he was of Mexican descent. That was, obviously, wrong and was condemned by Democrats and Republicans at the time.
[11:10:00] The disturbing thing, I think, from that tweet by President Trump this morning is that word so-called. Regardless of whether Judge Robart was appointed by President Bush or President Clinton or Obama or any other president, he is a sitting federal judge. The idea that he is so-called suggests that President Trump is deliberately sort of, with that tweet at least, undermining his authority as a representative of the federal judiciary.
SANCHEZ: Julian, going to you now, before we get into this entire legal mess, what are the chances - likely slim - that the White House might just tweak this executive order? Would that be a way to prevent a legal crisis?
JULIAN ZELIZER, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, AND NEW AMERICA FELLOW: Well, it depends what the tweak is. I think the basic substance of this order in many ways is the problem. So, the tweaking will be difficult. Obviously, President Trump made comments about allowing Christians in, which caused concern with the judge. So, we'll see if he can actually do that. I don't know if he wants to do that, though. I think there's an element of President Trump who thrives in this kind of a battle and I think the tweet this morning, which is concerning, suggests that he won't easily back down.
SANCHEZ: All right. Page, to you, so many legal questions to ask. Yesterday, we had Harvard Law's Alan Dershowitz on Anderson Cooper and he made a very interesting point about whether or not the constitution in this case applies for some of the people that fall under this travel ban. I want you to listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: The Supreme Court has been very clear that that family in Yemen, who was denied a visa, has no right to due process. Due process only applies to Americans, either American citizens or green card holders, but there is no due process right to get a visa for anybody abroad. So, I think although the judge did a very good job on the uniformity, I don't think he wrote a particularly compelling decision on why it's likely to succeed on the merits in striking down the entire order. And so, I think you're going to have an uphill fight in the Ninth Circuit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, if the constitution doesn't apply to these folks that are trying to come to the United States, does that put a wrench in this process?
PAGE PATE, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: It does a little bit. I mean, I agree with half of what Alan Dershowitz said. Procedural due process rights are different for someone who's here in the country or has legal status, someone with a valid visa, someone who's a legal permanent resident. They're clearly protected by the Constitution. And if you're going to deprive them of the ability to come into this country, you've got to follow the process. Now, somebody who does not have a visa, who is not a legal permanent resident, who has no status in this country, they don't have the same constitutional rights. You can turn them away at the border as long as the process is fair.
Now, this particular judge in Washington, I would not have expected him to detail in this temporary restraining order all the pluses and minuses about the constitutional arguments. All he's trying to find at this stage is, is there enough to stop it now, is there a good chance that the folks in Washington and Minnesota will succeed in their lawsuit and he said that there was.
SANCHEZ: Well, the next question is, what happens next? Let's play this out a little bit further and help us understand. So, this is likely to go to the Supreme Court.
PATE: Eventually, I would say, because we already have two inconsistent decisions where the judge - a district court judge in Washington and then on the other side of the country in Boston saying two different things about it.
SANCHEZ: Completely opposite decisions.
PATE: Completely opposite decisions.
SANCHEZ: So, if this goes to the Supreme Court right now, there's a 4-4 split.
SANCHEZ: Let's say that weighs into the legal process and there's 4-4 split in this decision. Typically, it goes back to the circuit court.
PATE: That's right.
SANCHEZ: But, in this case, there's two opposing decisions, so what do we do at that point?
PATE: Well, we have another step in between the district court and the Supreme Court, and that's the circuit court. You've heard a lot of discussion about the Washington case being taken to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That's our appellate court out on the West Coast. There's another appellate court. In fact, there are many of them, but there's one that covers Massachusetts and states in the Northeast. That's the First Circuit. You could have two inconsistent decisions from those courts and that's when the Supreme Court takes it up.
What I expect to happen, though, and it's great to see that some of the executive agencies, despite the rhetoric from the president this morning, have decided to follow this so-called judge's order and stop right now. Give the court in Washington time to waive through these constitutional arguments, issue a final decision on the merits and then take it up to the Ninth Circuit. Let that play out at the Ninth Circuit. What concerns me, though, is people are thinking, well, it's OK now if I got a visa to get back on a plane. Well, what happens if the Ninth Circuit reverses this decision?
SANCHEZ: Because it's not a done deal.
PATE: It's not a done deal and the Justice Department said we're going to challenge it at the earliest opportunity. Well, that's today. They could file a motion right now.
SANCHEZ: Right. So just to be clear, the decision is based on the fact that this is likely to prevail, not the fact that it has prevailed.
PATE: That's exactly correct, yes.
[11:15:00] SANCHEZ: All right. Page, thanks so much. We still have a lot more questions to ask. Julian, very quickly, to you, we've seen week after week of controversy from President Trump. First, the women's march; last week, the travel ban; now the fallout from the travel ban. Is this just the new normal?
ZELIZER: Yes. I don't think President Trump is going to change. The question is when do these other actors start to put restraints on the president. Now, we have seen a judge do that. We have seen protests not just here, but all over the world starting to build political pressure on the president. And, finally, the big question that we need to keep focused on, the Congress. When does the Republican Congress start to buckle in its support of President Trump? Until it does, he still has a lot of sway and I think he will keep moving forward with these aggressive actions.
SANCHEZ: Now, Julian, do you - this is really fascinating, in part because Trump is doing something that most politicians don't and he's doing something that this supporters love to see. He's carrying out his campaign promises. Some 47 percent of Americans approve of this travel ban. In effect, this is an extension of what he said on the campaign trail. How do trump voters see this new legal battle? I mean, it has to upset them, right?
ZELIZER: Well, I think they'll be more upset with the court rather than him. And my guess is the so-called is a signal to his supporters that he intends to fight. I think you're absolutely right. He is trying to convey a president who does what he says. He is not a president who is scared by anyone, including a judge. And so, I think his focus now in the electorate is not on these national polls. It's on that coalition that brought him into office and he is trying to energize them and keep them excited about who he is and what he's doing.
SWERDLICK: Can I just add? I agree with Julian. I would just say if you look into the crosstabs of the CNN/ORC poll, yes, only 47 percent of Americans overall favor the Muslim ban, but 87 percent of self- described Republican and 92 percent of Trump supporters support the Muslim ban, and that is who the president, I think, is playing to.
SANCHEZ: Right. This certainly is Exhibit A for the polarization of our country. Guys, we will see you shortly after a break. Unfortunately, we have to go to commercial during this very heated discussion. Thank you.
[11:20:00] SANCHEZ: Just minutes ago, the Department of Homeland Security saying that it will not implement President Trump's order banning citizens from seven Muslim majority countries from entering the US. A State Department official also tells CNN it is reversing the cancellation of thousands of provisionally revoked visas.
Back with us is our panel. Julian Zelizer, historian and Professor at Princeton University; and CNN political commentator, David Swerdlick, who is also an editor at the "Washington Post"; and constitutional attorney, Page Pate.
Page, let's continue with you getting back into the legality of all of this. Obviously, it's still not a done deal. It's based on the likelihood that this is going to prevail. In your eyes, what are the weaknesses here for this to move forward?
PATE: Well, for the Washington order, I think there are basically two weaknesses. The attorney general in Washington relied very heavily not so much on the text of the executive order because nowhere in that order does it actually say Muslim ban. What the attorney general in Washington did, though, is put into his complaint a lot of language that the president had used about banning Muslims, a lot of language about the implementation of the order, not just the text itself. So, the Justice Department will likely come in and challenge that basis for suggesting that the order is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional on its face. And so, that'll be their first argument. I think their second argument will be this judge really doesn't have the jurisdiction to ban this on a national scale. Now, the judge relied on the Texas case, which is where President Obama's immigration executive order was stayed. Exactly. But the administration back then didn't challenge the jurisdiction, they challenged the merits. So, I don't know if the Justice Department is going to suggest that this judge doesn't have the ability to do what he did or if they're going to focus on the merits.
SANCHEZ: Different routes of -
SANCHEZ: David, quick question for you, something we just mentioned. This is kind of a precedent set by Republicans, isn't it? The Democratic method of challenging Trump's executive order is basically filing a lawsuit, something that we saw Republicans do during President Obama's administration.
SWERDLICK: Yes. Republicans challenged the Obama administration on any number of issues, from the Affordable Care Act to his executive orders on immigration. And the Trump administration certainly has the right - the White House, the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security - to now go to the appeals court and challenge the temporary restraining order from the Washington federal judge. But that is the proper place for this to be litigated along lines that Page just laid out, not for the White House to sort of undermine the judge's rightfully issued temporary restraining order, but to challenge it, I think, on the merits because what's at the heart of this, I do think, is whether or not this constitutes a Muslim ban.
I would guess that the White House might be willing, at some future point, to tweak some of the language to clarify which visa holders or visa - or refugees are able to enter or not enter the United States. But they have pushed back strongly on the idea that this is a Muslim ban, even though, in my view, I do think based on the seven countries that are named in the executive order, you can certainly make a case that it is a Muslim ban.
SANCHEZ: We have still so many questions to ask. Page, Julian and David, thank you so much for the time. Right now, around the world, demonstrations are happening as people march to protest President Trump's immigration ban. A live report from London is just ahead.
[11:25] SANCHEZ: Demonstrators are marching and rallying around the world today in opposition to President Trump's travel ban. These are some pictures from the marches today in London and Paris. Joining us now live from London, CNN correspondent Diana Magnay, and also joining us from Washington DC, Trita Parsi, he's an author and the Founder and President of the National Iranian American Council.
Diana, to you first, how does this travel ban and now this resulting legal battle affect the view of the United States from around the world, specifically there in the UK? DIANA MAGNAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, people who came out to demonstrate today feel deeply opposed to the travel ban and the kind of divisive politics, which they feel that it represents and they see coming from the Trump administration. And that's why, in London, we have had three very large demonstrations since he came into office two weeks ago. I think it's interesting you did talk about demonstrations all around the world and there have been others in Jakarta, in Australia, but really only a few hundred came out in Paris. It's in London where you've seen really large numbers as a result of this travel ban on Monday. There were 30,000 people here at Downing Street today again. And I think the reason you are seeing these kinds of numbers coming out in the UK is because of Brexit, because of the wave - the issue of Brexit and especially the issue of immigration within the Brexit debate has divided this country and there were many people who are marching today who are very angry at Theresa May for what they see as cozying up to Donald Trump. Some of the banners that I saw said things like, shame on May, Theresa the appeaser. So, that's very much mixed into the feeling amongst those who oppose this travel ban here in Britain.
SANCHEZ: All right. Diana Magnay live from London, thank you. Let's turn to Trita now. Trita, what's your reaction to this ban and the protests we're seeing around the world.
TRITA PARSI, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IRANIAN AMERICAN COUNCIL: Well, if you take a look at the ban itself, I think by now it's become quite clear this administration has a great difficulty conducting any type of policies because of the tremendous ideological contradictions that exist within the administration itself.
We are now seeing how other secretaries appointed by Trump from Homeland Security to Defense and to State have been opposing this internally and part of the reason why we are seeing this chaos is precisely because the effort by a few people inside of the White House and the NSC try to essentially run over the entire bureaucracies.
President Trump pledged to be the law and order president, but all that we have seen now in the last two weeks since he came into office is more disorder, chaos and disunity. Not just in the United States, but we are also now seeing it throughout the world where people are reacting to the disorder that he is creating.
SANCHEZ: Surely, it is important to point out that 47 percent of Americans actually wanted this travel ban. I do want to ask you, though, what went through your mind when you heard that this judge in Seattle put a stop to the immigration order?
PARSI: On the first point, regarding 47 percent, I think most people may actually not fully understand what the ban is. If they, for instance, did understand that it is banning countries who have not conducted any successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, not killed a single American on U.S. soil whereas countries that actually stand for about 94 percent of American casualties of terrorist attacks on American soil are not included.
If more people knew about this. I think many of those 47 percent would realize that this ban is doing absolutely nothing to add to their security. But I understand their sense of vulnerability after several months of President Trump and then Candidate Trump constantly whipping out these harsh emotions against Muslims and blaming the Muslim population for everything that is happening and creating that fear about them. It is not surprising some people would be falling for this illusion of security he is offering them.
SANCHEZ: Now we do have ask about these new sanctions on Iran, punishment for its ballistic missile test last week. Interestingly, the Obama administration issued similar sanctions last year in response to previous missile tests, are these even effective?
PARSI: No. These sanctions are not going to be particularly effective. To be completely frank, there is hardly anything the United States really could do in order to be able to significantly setback Iran's ballistic missile program mindful of the fact that there is absolutely no support in the U.N. Security Council for a stronger line on this issue.
They don't believe that this is a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution. The previous president did issue these sanctions and did have escalation at various points. But he also made sure that de-escalatory options were available.
They had a very strong dialogue particularly between Kerry and Zariv. So that they could dial things down, they could resolve issues if it got too heated. The Trump administration appears not to have even attempted to create those lines of communications before they went and significantly escalated the situation not necessarily with the sanctions, but with this notice that Flynn put out against Iran a couple of days ago.
SANCHEZ: One last question, Trita, Defense Secretary James Mattis earlier this morning called the Iran, quote, "The single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world" partially referring to Houthi rebels in Yemen. Perhaps when he was in military in Iraq war, some of the terrorist cells there that Iran allegedly sponsored. Do you agree with that assessment?
PARSI: It is for a long time that the Iranians have been involved in things of that kind. However, I think this is language that perhaps was more accurate 20 or so years ago. We have a scenario right now with ISIS, in which U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, are the sources of much of the funding that ISIS is getting and the United States is saying absolutely nothing about that.
I think it is fair to point out that the Iranians are doing very negative things. But this complete silence about what U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, who actually have accounted for American deaths on American soil, that silence I think betrays that is this is really not about security. This is about something else.
SANCHEZ: All right, Trita Parsi, we thank you for your perspective. We'll be right back after this break.
PARSI: Thank you. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Good morning and thanks for joining me. I'm Boris Sanchez in for Fredricka Whitfield.
The White House is scrambling at this hour to challenge a federal judge in Seattle who blocked President Trump's travel ban. The ruling coming from Washington State where the attorney general there says, "no one is above the law not even the president." Now the government is in the process of reinstating visas that were invoked when the order took effect last weekend.
CNN's Rachel Crane is at JFK International Airport in New York where last weekend there was a chaotic situation as the travel ban went into effect. Rachel, what's the situation there today?
RACHEL CRANE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, we have been here all morning. It has been very calm. It is a far cry from that scene we saw this weekend with over a thousand protesters here. Now the State Department's reversal, good news for travelers. However, they did specify that people whose visas were physically canceled, that they would not be honored.
And at this point, we don't know how many, although some 60,000 people who were impacted by this travel ban, how many of those visas were physically canceled. Now we spoke to a lawyer here on the ground, who voiced her frustration about that element of this decision. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAMILLE MACKLER, DIRECTOR, LEGAL INITIATIVE AT NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION: That's just a terrible, terrible thing. The government created as chaos. They had no legal, valid basis to cancel these visas, which can be expensive, which can be time-consuming. You have to travel to consulates, which often are not close to where the people live.
Some countries only have one consulate in the capital city, maybe two. Some of them take years and green card visas can take years and not to mention refugee visas.
Actually another thing we are going to do is reach out to our refugee resettlement partners to make sure that the canceled flights are reinstated for them. But we are going to continue to fight back because this is wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CRANE: She went on to tell us that one of their biggest challenges at this point is simply letting those 60,000 people that were impacted by this travel ban know that they are free to travel now --Boris.
SANCHEZ: All right, Rachel Crane, thanks for keeping an eye on that for us. Let's turn now to CNN aviation analyst, Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mary, airlines that had been told to stop travelers from boarding planes are now being told to allow those passengers to fly. They are apparently following that order. But this is a lot of confusion, isn't it? How is it going to impact airports, airlines, travelers?
[11:40:05]MARY SCHIAVO, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, certainly it does impact all of the above, but you know, airlines have some rules in place and so do our federal regulations. Now airlines own contracts of carriage which can be found online, tell you whose responsibility it is for the visas, et cetera.
But if you are flying on a U.S. carrier, you have a couple of advantages. We have a pre-inspection service where all of your documents are submitted in advance before the plane takes off in most cases. Now there are exceptions for some ports of call for the airlines.
But you would know before the plane takes off whether you are going to face a problem when you land. And then again, when you land, U.S. federal regulations say that if you are found not eligible to enter, the airline has to return you.
So unlike the Tom Hanks movie, "The Terminal," where he ended up living in the terminal, the federal regulations say the airline has to return you back.
So there are a lot of precautions already built into the regulation into the system and then the airlines themselves have contracts of carriage rules and their own rules as to what they will do.
SANCHEZ: But isn't there a good chance that, let's say, the Department of Justice gets this stay on the judge's order once it eventually comes down that there will be more travelers in limbo?
SCHIAVO: Well, absolutely -- I mean, depending on how the law goes. That's how it works in court. I am a lawyer. I can't count the number of times I have been waiting on appeals, stays, or special orders.
But in the interim, absolutely, there could be a lot of confusion, but the key is always to work with the airline before you take off. Of course, I am assuming everybody who is traveling is trying to do it honestly.
So you can work with your airline and ask for these checks and these pre-inspection, pre-landing checks. Now here is the problem, another problem to add to the list.
Some foreign carriers have refused to participate in this pre- inspection process. So frankly as a traveler, if you are traveling to the United States on a non-U.S. carrier and your carries does not participate in this -- won't submit your travel documents.
What that means is they submit the travel documents in advance to the United States, if they don't do that, they are putting their travelers at additional disadvantages.
So that's another one way to alleviate the problems in the interim and the unknown, try to fly with a pre-inspection service.
SANCHEZ: All right, Mary Schiavo, we appreciate your expertise. Thanks so much.
SCHIAVO: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Vice-President Mike Pence will take the stage in Philadelphia in the next hour. Will he address this controversial order to halt President Trump's travel ban?
And later since President Trump's executive order went into effect, thousands of visas have been revoked. We are going to talk about what's next for those visa holders.
SANCHEZ: Vice-President Mike Pence will speak in Philadelphia. The lingering question is will he address the new challenge affecting President Trump's travel policy by a federal judge?
CNN White House reporter, Stephen Collinson, joins us now live. Stephen, Pence addressing the Federalist Society today. What do we expect to hear from the vice-president?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, so far, the White House isn't saying whether Mike Pence will weigh in on the latest furor over the travel ban and the ruling last night that threw this whole thing into turmoil.
The ostensible purpose of the speech was to go up to Philadelphia to support the nomination of Judge Gorsuch for the Supreme Court in front of the Federalist Society, which played a great deal of a role in selecting him.
But clearly, the fact that this speech also has another theme of the role of courts in society. This takes on a whole new meaning in the life of the president of the United States.
Very unusual attack this morning on the judge involved in this Washington case as a so-called judge. You don't see that very often. So I think this makes this a much more politically delicate assignment for Mike Pence than it might otherwise have been.
SANCHEZ: Yes, the timing is certainly funny. Gorsuch got the nomination, but now comes the hard part. I want you to listen to something that Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer said earlier today, quote, "With each action testing the constitution and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court.
His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process." This kind of lines up the fact that that confirmation process is going to be a battle. So how is Gorsuch preparing for this fight?
COLLINSON: I think this is going to be a confirmation process that's going to be less about Gorsuch himself and his qualifications and his temperament to serve in the Supreme Court than the political turmoil that is raging around Washington.
Clearly, this new an intervention by the judge and the travel ban is going to play into this because if you think about it, Democrats now have even less incentive to cooperation with a speedy confirmation process for the judge.
Given that the fact that this case might soon or eventually at least end up in the Supreme Court, and currently there is a four-four balance on the Supreme Court with the ninth seat empty.
So why would Democrats put a judge on the court that's been nominated by President Trump for whom this travel ban legal row represents a huge liability. So I think that's going to make it a much more contentious process.
Schumer is already raising questions about whether the president is calling into question the independence of the judiciary. So it's another ingredient in what is already turning out to be a very contentious confirmation process for the judge.
SANCHEZ: All right, Stephen Collinson, thank you so much. We will see you again at the top of the hour with that speech from Mike Pence.
Up next, the countdown is on. We are just one day way from the Super Bowl. We are going to go live next to Houston with a look at Sunday's showdown.
SANCHEZ: Fortunately, giving us a break from the action in Washington, D.C. and in courts around the country, we can now focus on the action in Houston this weekend, the Super Bowl. One more day until the big showdown between the Patriots and Falcons.
Tom Brady looking to take down Atlanta's defense and earn the Lombardy trophy from the guy that suspended him for four games, Commissioner Roger Goodell.
Coy Wire joins us now live from Houston. Fans are traveling from across the country for the big game. What's it like in Houston right now, Coy?
COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: It's picking up, Boris, especially these past couple of days here at Super Bowl live downtown Houston, fans from all across the country, a lot of stars, we've seen stars on the red carpet. We'll talk about that you tomorrow for you. But there will be some notables at the game on Sunday too and one of them scheduled to attend is Vice President Mike Pence. Now the Super Bowl is already tagged a top tier national security event by the Department of Homeland Security and federal officials have been planning it for months to make Houston's NRG Stadium and the surrounding area secure for tomorrow's game. Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, will also be in attendance as part of the honorary coin toss.
All right, NFL stars, LeSean McCoy and Jarvis Landry teams up with Nike to infuse some hope in the youth and revitalize a historic rivalry between Yates and Wheatley High Schools here in Houston.
For decades, this was the largest attended high school game in the nation, 30,000 people gathered to cheer on the rivalry between the two predominantly African-American high schools.
But the communities fell on tough times and when the football program suffered, the community suffered more. The last three days, the kids had inspiration night with current and former NFL stars, highlighting their history. They were surprised with new uniforms and spent some time with their heroes on the football field, too.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LESEAN MCCOY, BUFFALO BILLS RUNNING BACK: For us to come back here and teach them the game, have fun with them, have fun playing this game. It's a combination for the kids here that anything is possible.
[11:55:06]JARVIS LANDRY, MIAMI DOLPHINS RECEIVER: I was their age and I wished somebody would have been in my neighborhood back in my hometown doing this. So, big shout out to Nike and all the people that made this possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WIRE: All right, it's almost game time. "Kickoff in Houston," a CNN police report special airs today 2:30 Eastern on CNN and CNN International. I and Hines Ward will join John Berman to discuss how the Falcons will take down the Patriots. I can say that as a former Falcon. Unbiased journalism today, Boris. I think you know that.
SANCHEZ: Staying completely impartial as usual. Coy Wire, thank you so much. The next hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts after a short break.
SANCHEZ: Thanks for joining us on NEWSROOM. I'm Boris Sanchez in for Fredricka Whitfield. We're about to listen in to Vice President Mike Pence. He's just arrived at the Federalist Society in Philadelphia where he's set to give a speech. Let's listen to what he says.
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- give Gene a round of applause, for heaven's sake, the Federalist Society (inaudible).