The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just released a unanimous ruling denying President Trump’s motion for a stay of the lower court injunction against President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily suspending Visa’s from seven nations of concern:

We are looking for the full ruling document. UPDATE: FULL RULING pdf Below

President Trump has two options on this specific XO, request direct appeal on this decision to Supreme Court Justice John Brennan who oversees the Ninth Circuit, or take the appeal to the full Supreme Court.

Additionally, President Trump may choose to rewrite the initial executive order and clarify the purpose and intent to avoid judicial challenge.</s>Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The US state with a deep fear of refugees

A US federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to reinstate his ban on citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not block a ruling by a Seattle court that halted the order.

Mr Trump responded with an angry tweet saying national security was at risk and there would be a legal challenge.

It was unclear whether he intended to file an appeal to the Supreme Court or keep fighting the case in Seattle.

In its 3-0 unanimous ruling on Thursday, the appeals court said the government had not proved the terror threat justified reviving the ban.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Bob Ferguson: Travel ban was adopted with "little thought, little planning, little oversight"

The ruling means that people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen with visas can continue to enter the US, and refugees from around the world, who were also subject to a temporary ban, are no longer blocked either.

However, the ruling does not affect one part of Mr Trump's controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under his predecessor, Barack Obama.

What did the three appeal judges say?

They accepted that the US president had sole discretion to set immigration policy but added that courts could still assess the order's compliance with the constitution.

They discussed whether the ban violated the constitution by targeting a religious group (Muslims) but did not reach a conclusion.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Where do America's undocumented immigrants live?

The judges also found "no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order" had committed a terrorist attack in the US.

However, the judges said both sides had made compelling cases: "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 appeal judges did not rule on the constitutionality of the order, just on the question of ending the temporary ban.

What has the reaction been?

Mr Trump responded to the ruling by tweeting his dissent, and then gave an audio statement saying it was a political decision.

The justice department, which made representations to the appeals court on behalf of the White House, said in a statement it was "reviewing the decision and considering its options".

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who had sued over the ban, said it was a complete victory for the north-western US state.

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio said: "Here in New York - the safest big city in America - we will always protect our neighbours, no matter where they came from or when they got here. Those are our values."

Defeated presidential challenger Hillary Clinton posted a tweet of the result:

What it all means - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

Donald Trump's lawyers did not make their case. In fact, according to three 9th Circuit judges, they did not even really try to make their case. Rather than explaining why the temporary travel ban was needed, the administration argued that the president's authority on immigration was so sweeping that they did not have to explain why the order was necessary.

According to the court, the government was unable to say why Mr Trump's ban addressed a pressing national security threat that a temporary stay of the order would worsen. The lawyers for the challenging states, on the other hand, convinced the judges that re-imposing the order at this point would create further chaos by infringing on the due process rights of those on US soil, regardless of their immigration status.

By issuing a unanimous, unsigned opinion, the judges avoid accusations of partisan bias, as one of the three was a Republican appointee.

Mr Trump tweeted a sharp "SEE YOU IN COURT" following the decision - but which court? An appeal to the Supreme Court seems likely, although a better move for the president may be to fight in the lower court until Judge Neil Gorsuch joins the top court, establishing a conservative majority on the bench.

Read more from Anthony

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption These Republican women support President Donald Trump's agenda in Washington

How did we get here?

The executive order, at the end of Mr Trump's first week in office, had sparked protests and confusion as people were stopped at US borders.

Then a week later, the Seattle judge issued a temporary restraining order that stopped the ban in its tracks, after Washington state and Minnesota sued.

The justice department appealed to the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, which heard oral arguments this week.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How travel ban prompted a heartfelt act of kindness

Lawyers representing the US government argued that the ban was a "lawful exercise" of presidential authority.

But the two US states said the ban had harmed universities in their states and discriminated against Muslims.

Other legal challenges are also under way across the country.

More on the Trump travel ban</s>SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Thursday refused to let President Trump reinstitute a temporary ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, ruling that the president's order violates the due process rights of people affected by the ban.

The quick decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit could lead to a showdown at the Supreme Court, unless the administration agrees to dial back the travel ban or try its case before a federal judge in Seattle who ordered it stopped last week.

"Although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action," the judge wrote in their opinion.

The ban, announced Jan. 27, temporarily barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and Syrian citizens indefinitely. It led to chaos at U.S. and international airports as tens of thousands of visa holders were blocked from entering the country or detained after arriving in the U.S.

A barrage of protests and lawsuits followed, leading to federal court rulings against the ban in New York, Virginia and elsewhere. One judge in Massachusetts later ruled in Trump's favor, but on Friday, District Judge James Robart in Seattle halted the policy nationwide, citing "immediate and irreparable injury" to foreigners with valid visas and green cards.

The next day, the State Department said it would restore more than 60,000 canceled visas, and the Department of Homeland Security stopped enforcing the ban, reverting to standard inspections. But Trump denounced the ruling of the "so-called judge" in starkly personal terms, and the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit, the nation's most liberal appeals court with jurisdiction over western states.

That court initially refused to lift Robart's restraining order on Saturday, required both sides to submit legal arguments by Monday, and held an extraordinary, hour-long telephone hearing Tuesday that was live-streamed to listeners around the world. All three judges voiced skepticism about the need for the ban, but one said it did not appear to target Muslims in general.

The Trump administration contends that the president has authority under the Constitution and congressional statute to control immigration for national security purposes. They point to a 1952 law that allows a president to bar entry to immigrants or classes of immigrants if the president deems them to be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

As a fallback, the Justice Department's August Flentje suggested on Tuesday that the president's executive order could be scaled back to allow immigrants from the affected countries who have already spent time in the U.S. to continue traveling without restrictions. The ban would still apply to visa holders from the affected countries who have not yet entered the U.S.

Opponents of the travel ban, led by Washington state and Minnesota and including nearly 20 other states, former national security officials and leading technology companies, say the ban discriminates against citizens of certain countries and the Muslim religion. They point to a 1965 law that prohibits discrimination against immigrants based on their country of origin, and claim the ban violates the establishment clause of the Constitution that protects freedom of religion.

Washington's solicitor general, Noah Purcell, argued Tuesday that students were stranded, families separated and longtime U.S. residents blocked from traveling abroad for fear of being stranded overseas.

While the judges mulled and crafted their ruling, Trump renewed his verbal assault on the judiciary. He called the oral arguments at the 9th Circuit "disgraceful," complained that courts "can be so political" and warned, "Right now, we are at risk because of what's happened."

His comments even drew a generalized response from his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, who called such remarks "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in a private meeting with a Democratic senator. After Gorsuch's reaction became public, Trump said it had been distorted.</s>A federal appeals court refused on Thursday to restore President Donald Trump's ban on travelers to the US from seven mostly Muslim countries, a ruling certain to hearten the technology industry.

A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban, which was called for by an executive order almost two weeks ago. The order created confusion in the country's airports and was challenged by the states of Washington and Minnesota.

The tech industry came out in full force against the ban, filing a brief signed by many of Silicon Valley's biggest companies, supporting a challenge to the president's order. The tech industry's objection to the ban marked a turning point in the industry's detente with Trump, who invited 13 tech execs to meet with him at Trump Tower in New York to discuss topics ranging from investment to immigration policy before he was sworn in.

Trump wasted no time lashing out at the judges, suggesting an appeal to the Supreme Court was imminent.



Trump signed the executive order on Jan. 27, suspending travel by individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Immigration officials across the country detained many travelers with valid visas for several hours.

Last Saturday, a US district judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order stopping the 90-day ban after Washington and Minnesota sued. Tech companies, including Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter supported those suits saying the ban would cause "substantial harm on US companies," as well as affect their global recruiting and disrupt their businesses.

The Justice Department quickly appealed, filing a brief with the 9th Circuit, arguing the president alone has the right to determine who should or should not be allowed to enter the country.

On Tuesday, the judges heard arguments by phone on whether the lower court's restraining order blocking the ban should be lifted that aired live on TV, the internet and across social media.

The judges acknowledged the competing needs the executive order highlighted.

"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 judges said in their decision. "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.

But they concluded that "these competing public interests do not justify a stay."

Tech executives, like Aaron Levie, CEO of enterprise storage company Box, expressed their pleasure with ruling.

Ninth Circuit's decision in Trump's immigration ban by CNET News on Scribd</s>A three-judge Appeals Court panel issued a unanimous ruling Thursday afternoon rejecting the Trump administration’s claim of “unreviewable” presidential power and sustaining a judicial order that bars enforcement of Trump’s temporary ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, as well as his temporary ban on the entry of refugees from any country.

The 3-0 ruling was signed by judges William Canby, appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980; Richard Clifton, appointed by George W. Bush in 2001; and Michelle Friedland, appointed by Barack Obama in 2013. They denied a Trump administration request for an immediate stay of the temporary restraining order issued February 3 by Federal District Judge James Robart in Seattle, Washington.

The panel declared: “[T]he Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.”

The 29-page decision subjects the Trump administration’s legal position and factual claims to withering criticism. The judges declare that the government presented no evidence that halting the travel ban would endanger national security or American lives. By contrast, the ruling held that the states of Washington and Minnesota, which brought suit against the ban, demonstrated widespread and irreparable damage on their citizens and institutions if the travel ban were reinstated.

The appeals court decision by no means ends the conflict over the travel ban. From a legal standpoint, it was not a final determination on the merits of the case, but merely continued the suspension of the travel ban while the lawsuit is more fully adjudicated.

President Trump responded to the ruling within minutes, tweeting, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” The Department of Justice, under newly sworn-in Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an adamant opponent of immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, said in a statement that it was “reviewing the decision and considering its options.”

One possible step would be a Trump administration appeal of Thursday’s decision to the US Supreme Court. However, the court has lacked a ninth justice for a year, since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and has had frequent 4-4 splits during that time. An evenly divided court would leave the denial of a stay by the Ninth Circuit intact.

Some right-wing legal commentators urged Trump to withdraw the executive order, which suffers from numerous technical defects pointed out in the court decision, and reissue it after consultation with congressional leaders and the newly installed members of the Trump cabinet, including Sessions. This step could delay Supreme Court review until after the confirmation of Trump’s nominee to fill the high court vacancy, Neil Gorsuch, in the expectation that he would provide a fifth and deciding vote for the government.

A third possibility, for which Trump seemed to lay the basis in a series of increasingly vituperative statements during the week, would be to directly defy the court ruling, escalating the conflict within the US political system to the level of a constitutional crisis. Certainly, Trump’s declaration that “If something happens blame him [Judge Robart] and the court system,” should be taken as a warning. The White House is prepared to use any terrorist attack that occurs as a pretext to breach constitutional norms and establish an authoritarian regime backed by the military and police.

The US ruling elite is deeply divided over what course of action to take. Speaking for those sections of the military-intelligence apparatus hostile to Trump, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on CNN only hours before the court ruling, declaring that he knew of no terrorist threat that could justify the travel ban, and warning that the ban had damaged relationships with US allies in the Middle East and would serve as a recruiting tool for Muslim extremist groups.

Even Trump’s own nominee to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch, voiced opposition to Trump’s tweets lambasting the “so-called judge” and suggesting the appeals court hearing Tuesday was “disgraceful.” Gorsuch is himself an appeals court judge, on the Tenth Circuit, and he told a Democratic senator that such attacks on judges were “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

The intensity of the political conflict, within three weeks of Trump’s inauguration, is reflected in the language of the Appeals Court decision, which systematically eviscerated the arguments made by the Trump administration in legal briefs and in the course of an hour-long oral argument Tuesday.

The three-judge panel found that the district court had the authority to rule on the Executive Order, rejecting the government’s claim that the president has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The government was not merely claiming that the political branches should be shown deference by the judiciary on national security issues, they wrote: “Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.”

They added, in language that underscores the implications of Trump’s actions and his administration’s legal argument: “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

The ruling cited a series of Supreme Court decisions striking down actions taken by the federal government and justified in the name of “national security.” These include the 2008 Boumediene decision, in which the court found, over the objections of the Bush administration, that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay had the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus and gain judicial review of their continued detention . The panel noted that at this stage in the legal proceeding, the burden was on the federal government to show that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its case and that it would suffer irreparable injury if the travel ban continued to be blocked. The government failed on both grounds, the three judges decided.

The ruling laid the most stress on the argument by the states of Washington and Minnesota that the travel ban was a gross violation of the constitutional requirement of due process, which applies not only to American citizens, but also to legal permanent residents, and to those without legal papers who are on American soil.

Even refugees seeking entry into the United States have rights under “procedures provided by federal statute,” which could not be overridden by the president. The panel rejected the claim of the Trump administration “that most or all of the individuals affected by the Executive Order have no rights under the Due Process Clause.”

The judges treated with some contempt the efforts by the Trump administration to rectify the obviously unconstitutional denial of rights to legal permanent residents. The inclusion of these green-card holders under the executive order was demanded by Trump’s fascistic chief adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, who overrode objections from Department of Homeland Security officials. After a series of unfavorable court rulings, the White House sought to “reinterpret” the order on the fly, with a statement by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and further directives to the DHS. Finally, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn issued “Authoritative Guidance” that the order did not apply to green-card holders.

The judges wrote: “At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. 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 and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely.

“Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. 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. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.”

The court ruling says that claims that the Trump executive order violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it was aimed at Muslims should be taken seriously, and it flatly rejects the White House claim that Trump’s intentions can only be inferred from the text of the order—which makes no mention of Muslims—and not from his public statements.

The judges write: “It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims… The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.” But they decline to pronounce further on the issue, pending actual discussion of this issue in further proceedings.</s>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal appeals court in San Francisco has refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday wouldn’t 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 Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

Government lawyers argued that the ban was a “lawful exercise” of the president’s authority and that the seven countries have raised terrorism concerns.

The states said Trump’s executive order unconstitutionally blocked entry based on religion.</s>A federal appeals court Thursday refused to let President Trump reinstitute a temporary ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, ruling that it violates the due process rights of people affected without a sufficient national security justification.

The unanimous verdict quoted a 75-year-old Supreme Court precedent that said courts have a duty “in time of war as well as in time of peace, to preserve unimpaired the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty.”

The quick decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit could lead to a showdown at the Supreme Court within days, unless the administration dials back the travel ban or agrees to try its case before the federal judge in Seattle who ordered it blocked last week.

The Justice Department said it was "reviewing the decision and considering its options." But Trump clearly indicated more appeals are coming.

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!" he tweeted minutes after the ruling was released.

The 29-page order represented a wide-ranging rebuke of Trump's travel ban. The judges found that the plaintiffs in the case -- the states of Washington and Minnesota -- showed that the ban may have violated the due process rights of foreigners who had valid visas and green cards, as well as those in the country illegally.

They also said "serious allegations" about religious discrimination against Muslims raised "significant constitutional questions" requiring a full airing in a trial court.

And the order also rejected a last-minute suggestion by the Justice Department to scale back the ban so that it would apply only to visa holders who had never stepped foot in the U.S. "It is not our role to try, in effect, to rewrite the executive order," they wrote.

The panel said that the president should get "considerable deference" in the areas of immigration and national security, "it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."

Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell, who tried the states' case during Tuesday's oral arguments, said the court "seriously considered all the government's arguments and rejected them."

Trump's ban, announced Jan. 27, temporarily barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and Syrian citizens indefinitely. It led to chaos at U.S. and international airports as tens of thousands of visa holders were blocked from entering the country or detained after arriving in the U.S.

A barrage of protests and lawsuits followed, leading to federal court rulings against the ban in New York, Virginia and elsewhere. One judge in Massachusetts later ruled in Trump's favor, but on Friday, District Judge James Robart in Seattle halted the policy nationwide, citing "immediate and irreparable injury" to foreigners with valid visas and green cards.

The next day, the State Department said it would restore more than 60,000 canceled visas, and the Department of Homeland Security stopped enforcing the ban, reverting to standard inspections. But Trump denounced the ruling of the "so-called judge" in starkly personal terms, and the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit, the nation's most liberal appeals court with jurisdiction over western states.

That court initially refused to lift Robart's restraining order on Saturday, required both sides to submit legal arguments by Monday, and held an extraordinary, hour-long telephone hearing Tuesday that was live-streamed to listeners around the world. All three judges voiced skepticism about the need for the ban, but one said it did not appear to target Muslims in general.

The Trump administration contends that the president has authority under the Constitution and congressional statute to control immigration for national security purposes. They point to a 1952 law that allows a president to bar entry to immigrants or classes of immigrants if the president deems them to be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

As a fallback, the Justice Department's August Flentje suggested on Tuesday that the president's executive order could be scaled back to allow immigrants from the affected countries who have already spent time in the U.S. to continue traveling without restrictions. The ban would still apply to visa holders from the affected countries who have not yet entered the U.S.

Opponents of the travel ban, led by Washington state and Minnesota and including nearly 20 other states, former national security officials and leading technology companies, say the ban discriminates against citizens of certain countries and the Muslim religion. They point to a 1965 law that prohibits discrimination against immigrants based on their country of origin, and claim the ban violates the establishment clause of the Constitution that protects freedom of religion.

Purcell, argued Tuesday that students were stranded, families separated and longtime U.S. residents blocked from traveling abroad for fear of being stranded overseas.

While the judges mulled and crafted their ruling, Trump renewed his verbal assault on the judiciary. He called the oral arguments at the 9th Circuit "disgraceful," complained that courts "can be so political" and warned, "Right now, we are at risk because of what's happened."

His comments even drew a generalized response from his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, who called such remarks "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in a private meeting with a Democratic senator. After Gorsuch's reaction became public, Trump said it had been distorted.</s>SEATTLE — The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is weighing the appeal of President Trump's executive order on immigration, is the federal appeals court conservatives have long ridiculed as the “nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus.”

Covering a huge swath of territory — nine western states plus Guam — the San Francisco-based court handles far more cases than any other federal appeals court, including some rulings that have invoked furor from conservatives over the years.

Among them: finding that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, that the “don't ask, don't tell” policy on gays in the military was problematic long before President Obama's administration ended it, and that states can force pharmacies to dispense emergency contraceptives.

But some legal scholars say the 9th Circuit's liberal reputation is overblown and that the court has moved to the middle as some of President Carter's appointees — who were considered extremely liberal — have taken semi-retired “senior” status or passed away.

A Democratic Congress nearly doubled the number of judges on the court during Carter's tenure, and his appointees faced easy confirmation in the Senate.

The three judges weighing Trump's travel ban are on the case by virtue of random assignment to this month's circuit court motions panel. Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby Jr. was appointed by Carter in 1980; Senior Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton was appointed by Bush in 2002; and Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland was appointed by Obama in 2014.

Canby, based in Phoenix, was a first lieutenant in the Air Force in the 1950s before becoming a Peace Corps administrator in Ethiopia and Uganda in the 1960s. Clifton, who keeps his chambers in Honolulu, came to the bench from private practice. So did Friedland, who is based in San Francisco.

They were scheduled to hear arguments by phone Tuesday on whether to maintain the temporary restraining order issued by Seattle U.S. District Judge James L. Robart that blocked enforcement of the travel ban from seven majority-Muslim nations.

President George W. Bush appointed six of the court's 25 active judges, but 18 have been appointed by Democrats. The seven appointed by Obama are generally considered moderate, said University of Richmond Law School Professor Carl Tobias.

Tobias called the notion that the 9th Circuit is liberal “dated.” Arthur Hellman, a federal courts scholar at University of Pittsburgh Law School, said the picture of where the court stands in relation to other circuits has become muddier.

“The reputation is certainly deserved based on the history of the last 40 years or so,” Hellman said. “It's been more liberal, by which we mean more sympathetic to habeas petitioners, civil rights plaintiffs, anti-trust cases, immigration cases. But it's less of an outlier now than it was.”

That history has prompted repeated, unsuccessful efforts to split the 9th Circuit — most recently in proposals filed this year by Arizona's congressional delegation.

A bill introduced last week by Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake would put Arizona in a new 12th Circuit with Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Washington while leaving California, Hawaii and Oregon plus Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the 9th Circuit.

A House version previously introduced by Reps. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republican representatives would leave Washington in the 9th Circuit.

Biggs in a statement said his aim was “to free Arizona from the burdensome and undue influence of the 9th Circuit Court.”

“As a promise to my constituents last year, I introduced this bill to protect Arizona from a federal circuit court that does not reflect the values nor laws of our state,” he said. “The Ninth Circuit cannot handle the number of states currently entrapped within its jurisdiction, causing access to justice to be delayed.”

Tobias said that while the 9th Circuit could use more judges, it makes little sense to split the circuit. California generates so many cases that the 9th is always going to have a heavy workload — it handled 11,888 of the 56,244 cases handled by all federal appeals courts in the 12 months ending last June. And Tobias said he doesn't consider the sort of judicial gerrymandering Biggs seeks as a valid reason to split the court.

Judge Alex Kozinski, the circuit's former chief judge, once joked in a New York Times interview that far from splitting the 9th, he was hoping to acquire more territory. He said he had his sights on Utah, for its good skiing.</s>SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Thursday refused to let President Trump reinstitute a temporary ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, ruling that the president's order violates the due process rights of people affected by the ban.

The quick decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit could lead to a showdown at the Supreme Court, unless the administration agrees to dial back the travel ban or try its case before a federal judge in Seattle who ordered it stopped last week.

"Although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action," the judge wrote in their opinion.

The ban, announced Jan. 27, temporarily barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and Syrian citizens indefinitely. It led to chaos at U.S. and international airports as tens of thousands of visa holders were blocked from entering the country or detained after arriving in the U.S.

A barrage of protests and lawsuits followed, leading to federal court rulings against the ban in New York, Virginia and elsewhere. One judge in Massachusetts later ruled in Trump's favor, but on Friday, District Judge James Robart in Seattle halted the policy nationwide, citing "immediate and irreparable injury" to foreigners with valid visas and green cards.

The next day, the State Department said it would restore more than 60,000 canceled visas, and the Department of Homeland Security stopped enforcing the ban, reverting to standard inspections. But Trump denounced the ruling of the "so-called judge" in starkly personal terms, and the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit, the nation's most liberal appeals court with jurisdiction over western states.

That court initially refused to lift Robart's restraining order on Saturday, required both sides to submit legal arguments by Monday, and held an extraordinary, hour-long telephone hearing Tuesday that was live-streamed to listeners around the world. All three judges voiced skepticism about the need for the ban, but one said it did not appear to target Muslims in general.

The Trump administration contends that the president has authority under the Constitution and congressional statute to control immigration for national security purposes. They point to a 1952 law that allows a president to bar entry to immigrants or classes of immigrants if the president deems them to be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

As a fallback, the Justice Department's August Flentje suggested on Tuesday that the president's executive order could be scaled back to allow immigrants from the affected countries who have already spent time in the U.S. to continue traveling without restrictions. The ban would still apply to visa holders from the affected countries who have not yet entered the U.S.

Opponents of the travel ban, led by Washington state and Minnesota and including nearly 20 other states, former national security officials and leading technology companies, say the ban discriminates against citizens of certain countries and the Muslim religion. They point to a 1965 law that prohibits discrimination against immigrants based on their country of origin, and claim the ban violates the establishment clause of the Constitution that protects freedom of religion.

Washington's solicitor general, Noah Purcell, argued Tuesday that students were stranded, families separated and longtime U.S. residents blocked from traveling abroad for fear of being stranded overseas.

While the judges mulled and crafted their ruling, Trump renewed his verbal assault on the judiciary. He called the oral arguments at the 9th Circuit "disgraceful," complained that courts "can be so political" and warned, "Right now, we are at risk because of what's happened."

His comments even drew a generalized response from his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, who called such remarks "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in a private meeting with a Democratic senator. After Gorsuch's reaction became public, Trump said it had been distorted.</s>WASHINGTON: A US federal appeals court on Thursday (Feb 10) unanimously upheld a temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's order that restricted travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

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

The White House said it had no immediate comment.

In a response to the ruling, Trump tweeted:



Trump's Jan 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 ruling from the 9th Circuit, which follows a hearing on the case on Tuesday, does not resolve the lawsuit, but relates instead to whether Trump's order should be suspended while litigation proceeds.

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

Either side could decide to appeal directly to the US Supreme Court.

Trump had said the order was vital for national safety and criticised Robart, the Seattle judge, for suspending it.

Critics have called Trump's ban discriminatory against Muslims and have questioned its value as a security measure. National security veterans, major US technology companies and law enforcement officials from more than a dozen states backed a legal effort against the ban.

Ultimately the courts will have to address questions about the extent of the president's power on matters of immigration and national security. Traditionally, judges have been extremely cautious about stepping on the executive branch's authority in such matters, legal experts say, though some note that the implementation of this order presents unique issues.

The appeals court panel subjected Trump's order to intense scrutiny during Tuesday's oral argument.

During the oral argument, the judges asked a government lawyer whether the Trump administration's national security argument was backed by evidence that people from the seven countries posed a danger.

Judge Richard Clifton posed equally tough questions for an attorney representing Minnesota and Washington. Clifton asked if Robart's suspension of Trump's policy was "overbroad". Clifton is an appointee of former President George W. Bush, a Republican like Trump.

August Flentje, representing the Trump administration as special counsel for the U.S. Justice Department, told the panel on Tuesday that "Congress has expressly authorised the president to suspend entry of categories of aliens" for national security reasons.

"That's what the president did here," he said.

When the 9th Circuit asked Flentje what evidence the executive order had used to connect the seven countries affected by the order with terrorism in the United States, Flentje said the "proceedings have been moving very fast", without giving specific examples.

He said both Congress and the previous administration of Democrat Barack Obama had determined that those seven countries posed the greatest risk of terrorism and had in the past put stricter visa requirements on them.

Noah Purcell, solicitor general for the state of Washington, began his argument urging the court to serve "as a check on executive abuses".

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.

"I actually can't believe that we're having to fight to protect the security, in a court system, to protect the security of our nation," he said at an event with sheriffs on Tuesday.

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.
The appeal of the Trump administration is denied as the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not block a lower-court ruling that brought the president's executive order to a halt.