(CNN) Another federal court has ruled against President Donald Trump's revised executive order limiting travel from six predominately Muslim countries -- and like other courts, used his tweets against him.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is yet another stinging loss from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump's original executive order on travel in February.

"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the three judges, all appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. "(I)mmigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show."

The judges cited Trump's latest tweets in the travel ban saga.

"That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!" Trump tweeted on June 5.

That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

"Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the 'countries' that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President's 'travel ban,'" the judge wrote.

They also cited White House press secretary Sean Spicer's confirmation that the President's tweets are "considered official statements by the President of the United States."

The judges largely affirmed US District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision from March which found the core provisions of the revised executive order -- temporarily blocking all refugees and foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US -- likely violated the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims, but on slightly different grounds.

Spicer on Monday said the administration is reviewing the decision and said it believes the travel ban is "lawful" and will be ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the ban is needed for national security purposes, and cited the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"President Trump knows that the country he has been elected to lead is threatened daily by terrorists who believe in a radical ideology, and that there are active plots to infiltrate the U.S. immigration system -- just as occurred prior to 9/11," Sessions said in a statement.

"The President is committed to protecting the American people and our national security, and we are proud to support his mission to put America first by defending his right to keep us safe," he added. "That is why the Department of Justice will continue to seek further review by the Supreme Court."

After Watson's ruling earlier this year, Sessions said he was "amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power."

Trump responded to the ruling in a Tuesday morning tweet , also noting an upcoming Supreme Court review: "Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again - Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the history of our country. S.C."

Ruling under statutory grounds

Unlike the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which shot down the President's revised travel ban on constitutional grounds last month, the Ninth Circuit was persuaded by statutory claims under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

"In conclusion, the Order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality," wrote the panel.

The court went on to explain that the federal immigration law "requires that the President exercise his authority only after meeting the precondition of finding that entry of an alien or class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Here, the President has not done so."

JUST WATCHED How much weight do Trump's tweets carry? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How much weight do Trump's tweets carry? 04:29

One victory for Trump administration, but will it hurt overall?

The court did limit the scope of Watson's ruling in one respect: inter-agency review of foreign countries' vetting procedures.

Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall had previously maintained that the administration was forbidden from conducting "a review of the vetting procedures" with respect to the six countries the ban covered -- but the Ninth Circuit concluded Monday that Watson "abused its discretion in enjoining inward-facing agency conduct because enjoining this conduct would not remedy the harms asserted by Plaintiffs."

But that partial victory may actually hurt the administration's chances before the Supreme Court, said Steve Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

"By holding that the district court was wrong to block the executive order's internal review procedures, the court of appeals allowed that review to go forward -- and, in the process, took away one of the arguments the government had been making in the Supreme Court for why the Hawaii order should be overturned," Vladeck said.

Legal filings due Monday in Supreme Court

The administration appealed the Fourth Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court, which set a Monday deadline for challengers of the travel ban to deny a request to allow the ban to go into effect immediately. It has also asked to stay the Hawaii judge's ruling.

"The First Amendment bars the government from making a citizens' status in the political community dependent on his faith," wrote Neal Katyal, an attorney for the state of Hawaii who is challenging the ban, in a filing Monday.

"The President unquestionably violates that command when he issues an Order that disproportionality burdens Muslim-Americans, while denigrating the Muslim faith and making it abundantly clear that the Order's harmful effect on Muslims is far from incidental," Katyal argued.

Katyal's brief also walks through the statement the President made during the campaign referring to a "Muslim ban" and the June 5 tweets.

In those tweets, the President expressed regret for withdrawing a previous version of the ban that had been issued last January. After the courts roundly criticized the original ban, the current revised edition was released in March. Among other things, the current travel ban no longer includes language that arguably prioritized certain religious minorities. It also removed Iraq from the list of banned countries, and makes clear that green card holders are exempt.

Katyal cites a tweet the President made on June 5 when he wrote, "The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C."

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2017

"Staying the injunction," Katyal writes, would "thrust the country back into the chaos and confusion" that resulted when the first Order was announced.

In his filing with the Supreme Court, ACLU attorney Omar C. Jadwat cited the impact of the ruling on the US Muslim community.

"Millions of American Muslims would know that, every day, their own government was enforcing a policy that denigrated their religion and their dignity," Jadwat wrote. "To allow the ban to go forward, the courts would have had to ignore a mountain of publicly available evidence—even though everyone else in the country , including those of the disfavored faith, could not ignore it."

This story has been updated.</s>President Donald Trump walks across the South Lawn in Washington on June 7, 2017.

Michael Reynolds / EPA file</s>Given the president’s (and his allies’) serial bashing of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a godless liberal bastion of judicial activism, it probably raised few eyebrows that a three-judge panel of that Court unanimously upheld a Hawaii federal district judge’s injunction against enforcement of Trump’s revised travel ban on Monday.

But the Ninth Circuit decision differed in two significant ways from the Fourth Circuit’s superficially similar ruling on May 25. The judges did not choose to maintain an injunction against the ban on the First Amendment Establishment Clause grounds emphasized by the Fourth Circuit — an argument that puts heavy emphasis in a controversial way on Team Trump’s comments about a “Muslim ban” before the election. Instead, they opted to focus on the claim that the administration did not make the sort of factual findings about national security threats allegedly posed by the people affected that the congressional statute authorizing such actions requires.

Perhaps even more important for purposes of the ultimate disposal of this case, the Ninth Circuit struck down the district court judge’s injunction against internal government operations associated with a permanent regime of enhanced vetting. Since the decisions in the Fourth Circuit did not touch on this issue, the administration is presumably empowered to move ahead on that front based on the Ninth Circuit decision.

So, at this point, the Supreme Court can choose between punting and basically telling the administration to forget about what was supposed to be a temporary travel ban, or deciding the case on one or both of the complicated issues cited by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. Either way, the underlying fight over the president’s desire to crack down on people coming into the country who happen to be Muslims will go on, in the courts and elsewhere.</s>A U.S. Appeals Court on Monday upheld a lower court ruling that blocks President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travellers from six Muslim-majority countries.

 The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle was the second appeals court to uphold an earlier court’s move to put the executive order on hold while challenges against its constitutionality move forward.

 The Trump administration had appealed to the court over the earlier ruling by a federal judge in Hawaii.

 The court had halted implementation of the entire executive order, which also sought to block issuances of new refugee admissions from around the world for 120 days.

 A separate decision on the order in the Fourth Circuit has already been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.</s>SEATTLE — Another federal court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s revised executive order limiting travel from six predominately Muslim countries.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is yet another stinging loss from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump’s original executive order on travel in February.

“We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress,” the judges wrote.

The judges largely affirmed a Hawaii judge’s decision from March which found the core provisions of the revised executive order — temporarily blocking all refugees and foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US — likely violated the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims.

Monday’s ruling will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is already considering a similar case from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia.

After the ruling from US District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized the action, saying he was “amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.”</s>(CN) – The Ninth Circuit on Monday became the second federal appeals court to uphold a stay of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, even as he presses the Supreme Court to reinstate it.

Monday’s decision follows a May 25 ruling by the Fourth Circuit that concluded Trump intended to discriminate against Muslims from the six countries he targeted in his executive order.

The administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let the ban take effect while the justices decide whether to review the Fourth Circuit ruling.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that Trump exceeded the scope of his authority in issuing the revised travel ban and largely upheld a ruling in Hawaii federal court that prevented the implementation of a ban on all travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

“Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show,” the 86-page opinion states. “The President must make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.’”

The ruling marks the second defeat for the Trump administration in the Ninth Circuit, with both decisions focusing on the presence of unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims embedded in each executive order. The first one was issued a week after Trump assumed office and a second, revised travel ban came in early March.

In the first case, the state of Washington sued the Trump administration, saying the ban was a thinly veiled attempt at harming Muslims. U.S. District Court Judge James Robart granted Washington a temporary restraining order, preventing implementation of the ban. The Ninth Circuit refused in February to reinstate the first travel ban.

Rather than appealing, the Trump administration revised the travel ban in a new executive order issued March 6.

This time around, Hawaii sued and U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson granted a temporary restraining order for similar reasons.

After Watson’s ruling, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized it by saying he was “amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power.”

Monday’s Ninth Circuit ruling will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is already weighing whether to take up the Fourth Circuit appeal.</s>June 12 (Reuters) - A second U.S. appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court's decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump's order. The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking parts of the order.

The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban.</s>A second United States appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court’s decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump’s order.

The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge’s ruling blocking parts of the order.

The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban.

Hawaii Federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked a March 6 executive order barring travellers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

Watson also blocked a directive that suspended the entry of refugee applicants for 120 days, as well as other instructions for the government to study tougher vetting procedures.

The 9th Circuit on Monday upheld the block on Trump’s travel ban and a cap on refugees. However, the appeals court vacated part of the injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting.</s>A second U.S. appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court's decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump's order. The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking parts of the order.

The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban. (Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

This story has not been edited by Firstpost staff and is generated by auto-feed.</s>Members of Hawaii’s Congressional delegation are lauding a U.S. appeals court decision to uphold the state's injunction against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said in a statement that the ban is “un-American, unconstitutional and contrary to everything we stand for.”

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold Judge Watson’s ruling against President Trump’s Muslim ban is another win for the rule of law,” he said.

U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, also issued a statement, touting Hawaii’s judges and the state for showing leadership in fighting the travel ban.

“Court after court has seen this Muslim ban for what it is: An illegal attack on a group of individuals singled out for their religion. Today is a victory not only for Hawaii, but for our shared American values. The decision is a welcome reminder that the federal courts serve an invaluable function in our system of checks and balances.”

Monday’s ruling means it keeps in place a decision by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to block the president’s revised travel ban that would restrict refugees and people from six countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – from entering the U.S. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on May 15.

Gov. David Ige added that Hawaii made "the right decision in challenging a travel ban that had little factual basis and discriminated based strictly on national origin and religion."

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said on Hawaii News Now Sunrise the decision would virtually guarantee the president would have to seek approval from the U.S. Supreme Court to move forward.

“Bottom line: there is a lot of activity going on with the case and you can see the courts are taking it very seriously,” Chin said.

Hawaii judges on Monday also urged the U.S. Supreme Court to deny an administration plea to reinstate the travel ban.
A Ninth Circuit Appeals Court panel unanimously upholds the Hawaii district court decision to prevent implementation of revised Executive Order 13780. On May 25, the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court affirmed a similar ruling by the Maryland district court.