President Trump's travel ban aimed at select Muslim-majority countries (with exceptions for Christian minorities) was first framed this past January as an urgent action to protect the nation from the imminent danger of foreign terror attacks. With airports in disarray over the unprompted and unclear executive order, the directive was quickly taken to court, and it became clear that Trump's dire warnings about national security threats were lacking one very important thing: evidence.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the ban was likely in violation of the Constitution. Trump's administration quickly began fine-tuning the ban in order to appease the court with a new order, claiming to be equally predicated on imminent danger to the nation. Here to offer insight on what we can expect with the new ban's rollout is Slate senior editor Dahila Lithwick. She specializes in writing about courts and law, regularly contributing to Slate's political columns Supreme Court Dispatches and Jurisprudence. Her most recent article on this topic is http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/03/trump_s_new_travel_ban_is_full_of_bogus_evidence_and_sketchy_claims.html">"The Bogus Logic of Trump's New Travel Ban." In this episode of Point of Inquiry she gives us a thorough overview of the new and original travel bans, and considers the many possible outcomes as we wait on the courts to rule.