Originally posted by the Voice of America. Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America, a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in the public domain. US Appeals Court to Hear Arguments on Trump Travel Ban by VOA News A U.S. federal appeals court is due to hear oral arguments Tuesday in the legal battle over President Donald Trump's executive order suspending the country's refugee admissions program and banning entry to people from seven Muslim-majority nations. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with county sheriffs in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Feb. 7, 2017. Speaking to members of the [1]National Sheriffs' Association at the White House Tuesday, the president did not predict the outcome of the hearing, but he acknowledged that the issues involved - including whether a president can impose strict restrictions on immigrants seeking to enter the United States - could wind up going to the Supreme Court. "Hopefully it does not have to," the president said. "It's common sense; you know some things are law, and I'm all in favor of that. And some things are common sense; this is common sense." White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters the president will respect any ruling Tuesday from the appeals court in San Francisco, which would only review the temporary order barring enforcement of Trump's executive order restricting immigration, and is confident the court will favor the White House position. "Tonight is about the restraining order," Spicer said. "It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and that's why we feel confident." Oral arguments will be made by telephone to judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals in California, and the hearing will be livestreamed on the internet via YouTube. The U.S. Justice Department has filed a statement with the court, defending the immigration order the president signed on January 25 as a "lawful exercise of the president's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees." The government's brief said a federal judge's order suspending the ban last week was an error, and described the action as "vastly overboard." The states of Washington and Minnesota are plaintiffs in the case, and court filings supporting them have come from attorneys general in 15 other states, the American Civil Liberties Union and a group of nearly 100 corporations. Filings supporting the presidential order have come from other companies that welcomed the restrictions. Watch video explainer from VOA's Masood Farivar: Two former secretaries of state, John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, say the executive order was "ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained." In contrast to Trump's argument that tight restrictions on immigration would enhance national security, Kerry and Albright said, "We view the order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States rather than making us safer." If the case eventually goes before the Supreme Court, the nation's highest judicial body, one analyst told VOA there are rulings from the past that could support Trump's policy. New York-based attorney Dan McLaughlin, told [2]VOA Persian's New Horizon show: "The Supreme Court has held for a long time that Congress has nearly unlimited authority in deciding who can enter the country -- an authority that includes excluding people from particular countries, as it did with Chinese immigration in the 1880s." McLaughlin said, "Because the president is relying on an authority delegated to him by Congress, he has a broad authority to act on immigration within the law, whether you think his policy is wise or not." Family members who have just arrived from Syria embrace and are greeted by family who live in the United States upon their arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Feb. 6, 2017. McLaughlin, who also is a columnist for the conservative news site [3]National Review, added, however, that Trump's prominent advocacy of a U.S. ban on all immigration by Muslims could come back to weaken his case before the Supreme Court. Republican candidate Trump called for specific action last year, while campaigning for the presidency, to bar almost all Muslims from entering the United States." "There's no question that the president has a legacy of comments that are going to make it more difficult for him to defend [his executive order on immigration] in court and the public," McLaughlin said. U.S. Judge James Robart of Washington state issued a temporary stay last Friday barring enforcement of Trump's executive order. That restored refugees' ability to enter the United States, along with other travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - the seven Muslim-majority states named in the presidential order - who had valid visas. Behrouz Naderlouei, an Iranian who gained entry to Los Angeles on Sunday after having been initially barred from traveling to the U.S. when the Trump travel ban was in force, speaks to VOA Persian's NewsHour show from California, Feb. 6, 2017. One such visa holder from Iran, Behrouz Naderlouei, arrived from Abu Dhabi to Los Angeles airport in California on Sunday. Speaking via Skype from California, Naderlouei told VOA Persian's [4]NewsHour program that immigration officers in Los Angeles were "very respectful," as they asked him and other Iranians who were on his flight to provide fingerprints and travel documents. "After receiving my passport, an officer smiled at me, and said, 'Welcome to America'," Naderlouei told NewsHour. New Horizon host Mohammad Manzarpour and NewsHour host Parisa Farhadi of [5]VOA's Persian service contributed to this report. References 1. http://www.sheriffs.org/ 2. http://ir.voanews.com/a/3708079.html 3. http://www.nationalreview.com/ 4. http://ir.voanews.com/a/3708204.html 5. http://ir.voanews.com/