For most of us, it was not until the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States that we ever would have expected to find ourselves hovering near a computer screen and listening to three judges hear arguments about a presidential executive order.

But that moment has arrived.

Later today, live-streamed with audio only for everyone to watch how the sausage of democracy gets made, we can catch the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as it considers Trump’s ban on refugees from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Here’s what you should know:

What’s happening?

The court will hear oral arguments today over whether to reinstate President Trump’s travel ban that blocked refugees and immigrants from coming into the United States from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

What time?

The proceedings, which the court has allowed to be audio-only live-streamed, are scheduled to start at 3 p.m. PT and should last about one hour.

Where can I listen in?

You can listen in to the hearing live on the court’s website here.

Reading this on your iPhone or iPad? Check out our new Apple News app channel here and click the + at the top of the page to save to your Apple News favorites.

Who’s on the panel?

Three randomly selected federal judges will hear arguments from attorneys for the states of Washington and Minnesota and the Department of Justice. They are Judges William Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee, Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee. The arguments will be heard over the telephone, hence the audio stream.

What’s the legal protocol?

Each side will have 30 minutes to make its case.

How did we get here?

After the attorneys general for Minnesota and Washington state brought a lawsuit against Trump’s ban, a federal judge on Friday issued a temporary nationwide block to prevent the immigration order from being implemented. Late Sunday, the Justice Department filed an emergency request to have the ban reinstated, but hours later that request was denied. So for now the stay stays and the immigrants can immigrate into the U.S. while the federal appeals court decides whether to restore Trump’s order. Related Articles How ‘liberal’ reputation of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is overblown, scholars say

The Latest: Justice Department files brief supporting Trump’s travel ban

Silicon Valley tech companies argue in court filing against immigration ban

What are Trump’s lawyers saying?

The federal government is arguing that the travel ban was a “lawful exercise” of the president’s authority to protect national security and they’re asking the appellate court judges to overrule the lower court’s decision to put the order on ice. The Justice Department believes the president has clear authority to “suspend the entry of any class of aliens” into the United States in the name of national security. Its lawyers argue that the travel ban on refugees from countries that may pose terrorist concerns was intended “to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks.”

What do the plaintiffs say?

The two states challenging the ban are arguing that resumption would “unleash chaos again,” separating families and stranding university students. In a legal brief filed by some of the biggest tech companies in the industry, lawyers argued that Trump’s ban is illegal because it discriminates on the basis of nationality. They call it overly broad and claim it’s written in such a way that it seems to open the possibility that the ban could be lengthened and expanded to include immigrants and refugees from other countries.

What could happen after today’s hearing?

Regardless of what the appeals court decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene. But its path to the highest court in the land is still unclear. Remember that the travel ban itself is set to expire in 90 days, which means it could be lifted before the higher court even gets around to hearing the case. Trump’s team, too, could alter the executive order in any number of ways that would then keep the issue alive.

And whether the Supreme Court bench has a new ninth justice on board by the time it’s ready to hear arguments is a whole other story just waiting to unfold. But if Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed by Senate Republicans, his vote would most certainly represent a tie-breaker.