A second lethal blow was struck Thursday at the controversial travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump on citizens of seven Islamic nations.

In a much anticipated verdict, a U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld the temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's order.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.

The White House said it has no immediate comment.

US President Donald Trump

But President Trump had on his Twitter platform written:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

Trump's January 27 executive order barred entry for citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and imposed a 120-day halt on all refugees, except refugees from Syria who are barred indefinitely.

The other was first binned by Judge James Robart of the Federal court in Seattle, state of Washington.

According to Reuters, the ruling does not resolve the lawsuit, but relates instead to whether Trump's order should be suspended while litigation proceeds.

Two members of the three-judge panel were appointed by former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush.

The government could ask the entire 9th Circuit court to review the decision 'en banc' or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The three judges said the states had shown that even temporary reinstatement of the ban would cause harm.

In the ruling, they said they acknowledged the competing public interests of national security and free flow of travel but that the U.S. government had not offered 'any evidence' of national security concerns to justify banning the seven countries.

They added that the government did not show evidence that any person from the affected countries had perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

Their ruling also said it was unlikely the White House's counsel had authority to amend a presidential executive order and that the government did not show how the order could be administered in parts.

Curbing entry to the United States as a national security measure was a central premise of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, originally proposed as a temporary ban on all Muslims. He has voiced frustration at the legal challenge to his order.

U.S. presidents have in the past claimed sweeping powers to fight terrorism, but individuals, states and civil rights groups challenging the ban said his administration had offered no evidence it answered a threat. – Agency report.</s>Several legal experts who weighed in on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to not order a reinstatement of President Trump's travel ban said they thought the administration had slim chances if it appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

UC Irvine Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky said it was difficult to predict whether the Supreme Court would review the decision.

“They don’t want a 4-4 split, but they really like having the last word on high-profile cases,” the constitutional law expert said. 

 

 John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley who worked for President George W. Bush’s administration and helped write a memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects, said the Supreme Court was unlikely to agree to review the decision.

The inclusion of green-card holders in the travel ban doomed it legally, Yoo said, and the Supreme Court rarely agrees to hear such emergency appeals in any case.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said she thought the Supreme Court would take up the question of whether to reinstate the travel ban.

"This is probably going to the Supreme Court, but I don't think it's going anywhere good for Donald Trump — even if the Supreme Court rules along party lines and is deadlocked, because the lower court's decision would stand."

If the Supreme Court did not take up the case or took it and was split in its ruling, the decision of the 9th Circuit Court would stand.

If it did not go to directly to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration could also ask the full 9th Circuit to review its request, said Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan who was the head of civil rights for the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama.

But with a unanimous decision from the three judges who issued Thursday's opinion, Trump's chances are not good in what's known as one of the country's most reliably liberal appeals courts.</s>SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court in San Francisco said Thursday it will release its ruling by the end of the business day in the legal fight over whether to reinstate President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

A panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is deciding whether to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there's no chance Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.</s>[AP] "A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

During his remarks at a law enforcement conference, Trump said the courts blocking his divisive immigration order "seem to be so political." ..."</s>SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

The panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday conducted by phone — an unusual step — and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.

“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15 percent of the world’s Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base. Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit works its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there’s no chance Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue. The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.</s>President Trump took to social media Friday to continue attacking an appeals court decision against his proposed travel ban from seven Muslim countries.

Trump cited a law journal article criticizing an aspect of the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the ban would violate the due process rights of travelers without a sufficient national security justification.

The author of the Lawfare article Trump cited, Benjamin Wittes, tweeted that the president distorted his argument.

The president did not outline his next step but indicated to reporters he would appeal the decision and continue pursuing the ban.

"We have a situation where the security of our country is at stake and it's a very, very serious situation, so we look forward ... to seeing them in court," Trump said right after the ruling. "We're going to win the case."</s>SAN FRANCISCO — A U.S. federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, unanimously rejecting the administration’s claim of presidential authority and questioning its motives.

The panel of three judges from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travellers to enter the U.S.

The court battle is far from over. The lower court still must debate the merits of the ban, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely. That could put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy. Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could not be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

Moments after the ruling was released, Trump tweeted, “SEE YOU IN COURT,” adding that “THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

In response, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat who leads one of the states that challenged the ban, said: “Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.”

The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”

The court rejected the administration’s claim that it did not have the authority to review the president’s executive order.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the court said.

While they did not rule on the actual merits of the states’ argument that the travel ban was intended to target Muslims, the judges rejected the government’s claim that the court should not consider statements by Trump or his advisers about wishing to enact such a ban. Considering those remarks, the judges said, falls within well-established legal precedent.

The Justice Department said that it was “reviewing the decision and considering its options.” It’s the first day on the job for new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was sworn in at the White House earlier Thursday by Vice-President Mike Pence.

Last week, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued. The ban temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns.

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

The appeals court sided with the states on every issue save one: the argument that the lower court’s temporary restraining order could not be appealed. While under 9th Circuit precedent such orders are not typically reviewable, the panel ruled that due to the intense public interest at stake and the uncertainty of how long it would take to obtain a further ruling from the lower court, it was appropriate to consider the federal government’s appeal.

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the “million-dollar question” is whether the Trump administration would appeal to the Supreme Court.

That could run the risk of having only eight justices to hear the case, which could produce a tie and leave the lower-court ruling in place.

“There’s a distinct risk in moving this too quickly,” Blackman said. “But we’re not in a normal time, and Donald Trump is very rash. He may trump, pardon the figure of speech, the normal rule.”

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said the ruling was thoughtful and supported by a great deal of legal precedent. More important, though, it was unanimous despite the having judges who were appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents.

“It’s a very important message that judges are not just politicians in robes and not just political hacks,” Levinson said. “The role of the judge is to transcend politics. That’s why they’re appointed for life, so they don’t worry about what’s popular. They worry about what’s legally correct.”

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments Tuesday. The judges hammered away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.

“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Only 15% of the world’s Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the Justice Department attorney.

After the ban was put on hold, the State Department quickly said people from the seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with valid visas could travel to the U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the Supreme Court would take up the issue.</s>A federal appeals court has handed a resounding victory to Washington state and Minnesota in their challenge of President Donald Trump's travel ban, finding unanimously that a lower court ruling suspending the ban's enforcement should stay in place while the case continues.

The 3-0 decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the states on nearly every issue presented.

Some legal scholars who reviewed it said the Justice Department could face long odds in any immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though that won't necessarily stop the administration from trying. Trump tweeted "SEE YOU IN COURT" after the ruling came out Thursday — prompting a sharp retort from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee: "Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you."

Here's a look at the legal issues in the court's ruling and what comes next.

WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN?

For now, it means refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim nations identified in the president's surprise Jan. 27 executive order can continue entering the country. Travelers from those countries won't be detained, or put back on planes heading overseas, and there won't likely be more protests jamming the nation's airports as there were after Trump issued the surprise order.

But the executive order isn't dead, either — it just isn't being enforced while the courts debate its legality. The federal government has 14 days to ask the 9th Circuit to reconsider Thursday's decision. It could also file an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which would go to Justice Anthony Kennedy for referral to the rest of the court.

Rory Little, a former Supreme Court clerk who teaches at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, doesn't think that's such a good idea. In addition to seeking to overturn a reasoned decision, he said, Trump would be facing Chief Justice John Roberts, who just wrote an annual report in which he raved about his District Court judges. The president repeatedly insulted the Seattle judge who ruled against him, in addition to the appeals judges who followed suit.

"I think Kennedy and Roberts are seething about the president insulting their judges," Little said. "If they go to the U.S. Supreme Court, they risk getting a serious adverse ruling."

WHAT DID THE COURT CONSIDER?

There have been, in effect, two items before the court: the government's appeal of the lower judge's ruling, and its motion to put that ruling on hold pending the appeal. On Thursday, the panel denied the motion for stay and set a briefing schedule for fuller arguments on the merits of the appeal.

That prompted some confusion among those watching the case, many of whom expected it to be returned to the Seattle courthouse. Washington's lawyer, state Solicitor General Noah Purcell, wrote to the Seattle court's clerk late Thursday to note the state wouldn't be making an expected court filing because of the new appellate briefing schedule.

Barring an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, the government's opening brief is due March 3, with the states' filing due March 24.

In denying the motion for stay, the court said it was considering whether the administration was likely to win its appeal, whether suspending the travel ban had harmed the government, and whether the public interest favored granting the stay or rejecting it.

The judges agreed that the lower court's ruling was appealable — the only question on which the states lost. They rejected the DOJ's argument that the states lacked standing to sue, noting that some faculty members at state universities were unable to travel, for example.

But most forcibly, they rejected the DOJ's notion that the president has nearly unlimited authority over immigration decisions.

"There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the opinion said.

Based on what they know so far, Trump's executive order poses some serious constitutional concerns, the panel said. For example, the government hasn't shown that it complies with due process, by giving those affected notice or a hearing before restricting their ability to travel.

While the government insisted that most or all those affected don't have such rights, the court disagreed. The protections of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause aren't limited to U.S. citizens, the judges said.

Furthermore, while the White House Counsel Donald McGahn issued guidance days after the executive order saying it didn't apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., some of whom had been caught up in the travel ban, that guidance was of little use, the court wrote.

"The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President," the opinion said. "The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments."

Many conservatives denounced the ruling, and some law professors criticized various aspects of it, including its lack of analysis regarding a law giving the president power to suspend entry of "any class of aliens" when he finds their entry "would be detrimental" to the country.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas called the decision misguided and wrote off the court it came from as "the most notoriously left-wing court in America."

While the 9th Circuit certainly has a lefty reputation, based in part on the long tenure of the many liberal judges that Democratic President Jimmy Carter appointed, legal scholars say the label is less deserved than it used to be. Two of the judges on the panel that made the ruling are Democratic appointees, while one, that Judge Richard Clifton, was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond Law School, said Clifton's decision to join the opinion should allay any concerns that it was motivated by politics instead of the law. That should make the government think twice before going to the Supreme Court, he said.

During oral arguments Tuesday, Clifton "was asking the best questions that might lean toward the government, but even he wasn't persuaded on the law or the facts, so that makes it really tough for the government," Tobias said. "I don't think they're going to be well-received at the Supreme Court for all kinds of reasons, but mainly because this is a reasonable decision. The precedents are there, they've weighed the issues, and even Clifton signed it."

AP writer Terry Chea in San Francisco contributed to this report.</s>WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role as a check on the president.

 The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said the administration had shown “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations , Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen , had committed terrorist acts in the United States.

 The ruling also rejected Mr. Trump’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security assessments. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, the court said.

 “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.”

 The decision was handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. It upheld a ruling last Friday by a federal district judge, James L. Robart, who blocked key parts of the travel ban, allowing thousands of foreigners to enter the country.

 “On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies,” the decision said. “And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”

 “These competing public interests,” the court said, “do not justify a stay.”

 At the White House, the president told reporters that the ruling was “a political decision” and predicted that his administration would win an appeal “in my opinion, very easily.” He said he had not yet conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter.

 “W e’re going to see them in court, and I look forward to doing that,” Trump said. “It’s a decision that we’ll win, in my opinion, very easily.”

 Trump’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton celebrated the decision, tweeting simply “3-0.”

 3-0. The states of Washington and Minnesota had challenged the ban.—INP</s>WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Thursday’s federal appellate court ruling against reinstating his refugee and immigration order was a “political decision” that jeopardized national security.

“We have a situation where the security of our country is at stake and it’s a very, very serious situation so we look forward … to seeing them in court,” Trump said. “We’re going to win the case.”

Trump, in a brief, impromptu appearance in the West Wing, did not specify what his administration’s next legal steps would be and said he had not yet conferred with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was sworn into office earlier Thursday.

The president said he did not believe the decision undercut his presidency.

In a unanimous decision, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Thursday to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the executive order preventing travellers from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the U.S.

The Justice Department said it was “reviewing the decision and considering its options.” It could appeal the judge’s restraining order to the U.S. Supreme Court or it could attempt to make the case for the travel ban in the district court.

White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway suggested the next step would be to argue the merits of the executive order.

“The statute provides a president … with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and to protect the nation’s national security,” Conway said. “This was not argued on the merits. Now that we’ll have an opportunity to argue on the merits we look forward to doing that. We look forward to prevailing.”

The ruling represented a setback for Trump’s administration and the second legal defeat for the new president in the past week. Trump’s decision to sign the executive order late last month has sparked protests at airports around the world as authorities barred scores of travellers from entering the country amid confusion over how to implement the details.

The appellate decision brushed aside arguments by the Justice Department that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

Shortly after the ruling, Trump tweeted, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted Thursday that Trump “ought to see the writing on the wall” and abandon the proposal. The New York Democrat called on the president to “roll up his sleeves” and come up with “a real, bipartisan plan to keep us safe.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California promised, “Democrats will continue to press for President Trump’s dangerous and unconstitutional ban to be withdrawn.” And Trump’s former presidential rival Hillary Clinton offered a terse response on Twitter, noting the unanimous vote: “3-0.”

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued the temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued, leading to the federal government’s appeal.

The Trump administration has said the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — have raised terrorism concerns. The states have argued that the executive order unconstitutionally blocked entry based on religion and the travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities.

In a hallway conversation with reporters, Trump expressed confidence that he will prevail in court if the case is argued on the merits.

He and his aides frequently refer to a ruling by a federal judge in Boston who declined last week to extend a temporary injunction against Trump’s travel ban. In the separate federal ruling in Seattle that night, a different federal judge put the ban on hold nationwide; it is that judge’s decision that the White House has challenged.

“It’s a decision that we’ll win, in my opinion, very easily and, by the way, we won that decision in Boston,” Trump said.

The president, in his third week in office, has criticized the judiciary’s handling of the case. Last weekend, he labeled Robart a “so-called judge” and referred to the ruling as “ridiculous.” Earlier this week he accused the appellate court considering his executive order of being “so political.”

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, has referred to the president’s comments as “demoralizing and disheartening,” according to a Democratic senator who asked him about Trump’s response.

Trump has yet to nominate a candidate to be solicitor general, the lawyer who argues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States. Trump told reporters he’ll be making that decision over the next week.
The Trump administration decides to not immediately appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision, which continues the travel ban suspension, to the Supreme Court.