On the morning after the ruling, President Trump tweeted his criticism of the court's ruling, stating: "Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again - Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a unsafe time in the history of our country. S.C".
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unanimously rejected US President Donald Trump's so-called "revised Executive Order travel ban" on the rights of nationals of six mainly Muslim nations to visit the United States. The three-judge panel said Trump's March 6 order violated existing immigration law, but did not address whether it was unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims.
When U.S. District Judge William Orrick blocked his executive order on stripping federal funding from sanctuary cities, Trump incorrectly attributed the decision to the 9th Circuit as he wrote on Twitter: "First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities - both ridiculous rulings". The travel ban challengers claim the 90 days expires this Wednesday, which is 90 days from the revised executive order's travel ban's stated effective date of March 16. Arguments in the appeal of the Hawaii ruling were made last month in Seattle, where the 9th Circuit also has a courthouse.
That ban, an executive order issued by Trump, temporarily blocked refuges and nationals from six majority Muslim nations from coming to the United States and has faced repeated challenges since an initial order was issued in January.
But they said, "The order does not tie these nationals in any way to terrorist organizations within the six designated countries".
Another day and another tweetstorm from President Donald Trump's tiny Twitter fingers. National security is not a "talismanic incantation", the court concluded.
The Supreme Court could rule on 4th and 9th Circuit rulings at any time.
That reasoning could be more palatable to the Supreme Court than the sweeping constitutional ruling by the 4th Circuit, scholars said.
On Monday, the plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit case filed motions opposing the government's requests for the Supreme Court to take the case and for a stay.
Unlike other courts in the past, the three judges did not dwell on Trump's public comments, nor did they declare that the president had run afoul of the Constitution because his intent was to discriminate.
The high court could still act before then on the separate emergency request in a similar case from Maryland.
"They don't need to psychoanalyze the president", he said.
By avoiding the question of Trump's motive for banning the travelers, the 9th Circuit avoided a thorny issue about whether courts should consider the president's campaign-trail statements.