The Ninth Circuit Court, Katyal said, had already decided that in its ruling against the original Trump order.
Opponents - including the state of Hawaii and civil rights groups - say that both Trump's first ban and the later revised ban discriminate against Muslims.
"The executive order sets out national security justifications, but how is a court to know whether in fact it's a Muslim ban in the guise of national security justification?" asked Judge Ronald Gould.
Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall defends Trump's executive order on immigration.
Wall said that internment then, and the travel ban now, are absolutely different - and that he wouldn't be defending the executive order otherwise.
The three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had tough questions for each side. They, too, peppered Wall with questions about whether they could consider Trump's campaign statements calling for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. But the judge wondered whether Trump is forever forbidden from adopting an executive order along the lines of his travel ban.
The judges gave no indication of when they might rule.
Attorney Neal Katyal argues the case for Hawaii before a panel of federal appeals judges.
"Context matters", Katyal said Monday. Among other things, Section 2 suspends from "entry into the United States" for a period of 90 days certain nationals of six countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
"There is no case like this, is there?" asked Judge Richard Paez during the hearing.
As a result, the Trump administration went back to the drawing board, drafting a revised executive order in March that provided advance notice to travelers and exempting foreigners with valid visas, admittedly in the hopes of addressing the "judicial concerns" posed by the original order.
Katyal said no, and suggested the president could begin by repudiating his earlier statements or by working with Congress.
A week ago, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration has been "consistent" in referring to the president's order as a ban.
GOP candidate for FBI says no special counsel for inquiry
Eliot Spitzer); former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly; Boeing Corp. general counsel and former 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general, knows how special college graduation can be for families.
Salve charged Re 1 for fighting Jadhav's case at ICJ: Swaraj
Dr Faisal said spies do not have right to counsulor access and India has not produced evidence in favour of Yadav in the court. Pakistan claims to have arrested Jadhav from its restive Balochistan province.
Knicks legend Clyde Fraizer to represent team at draft lottery
The answer will come instantly Tuesday night, with overwhelming odds that it will not be the result of choice for the Miami Heat. Likely prospects to go No. 1 overall are Washington guard Markelle Fultz and UCLA guard and expensive shoe-wearer Lonzo Ball .
Hawkins tried to make it somewhat easy for Wall at one point, by asking if there were one way to interpret the president's order that was "good" and another way that would make it look "bad", a court should choose the "good".
But Paez noted that Trump made his calls for a Muslim ban "in the midst of a highly contentious campaign".
President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban was once again argued in court in Seattle today.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall, who argued both times, did not vary his argument at the lectern in Seattle, contending basically that the courts should act against the presidential order only if the challengers had made an extremely strong argument that Trump had misused his powers.
Various lower courts, however, have ruled that the ban was created to discriminate against Muslims, citing Trump's divisive comments from the stump as evidence.
Travel ban headed to SCOTUS?
The arguments were carried live on some cable news channels. How those laws might authorize or constrain Trump's actions is a key aspect of the travel ban cases.
The latest twist in the months-long legal battle, which has dealt a stinging setback to Trump's young administration, took place in the western city of Seattle where a crowd rallied in protest at the contested immigration ban.
The protesters were on hand about an hour before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case.
Monday's hearing came a week after a federal court in Maryland also heard arguments on whether to uphold a separate judge's decision blocking the ban. Chuang only blocked the six-nation travel ban, saying it wasn't clear that the suspension of the refugee program was similarly motivated by religious bias.
The Justice Department separately appealed a different federal judge's decision to halt the 90-day travel ban to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Because of how the courts chose to proceed, a full slate of 13 judges heard the 4th Circuit arguments last week, while just three, all appointees of President Bill Clinton, will sit in Seattle.
One can likely guess that this trio of judges is not going to reach a different conclusion from the previous three, given that the order was not fundamentally different from the first one - it addresses some of the judges' concerns, like the banning of travelers with valid visas, and removed Iraq from the list of suspect countries, but it still singles out six countries and judges have continued to wrestle with how to square the semantics of the order with Trump's and his deputies' earlier statements that suggest the order was created to punish Muslims.