(Reuters) - In a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump, a U.S. appeals court refused on Thursday to reinstate his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations, calling it discriminatory and setting the stage for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

The decision, written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, described Trump’s executive order in forceful terms, saying it uses “vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the government, which says the temporary travel ban is needed to guard against terrorist attacks, would seek a review of the case at the Supreme Court.

“These clearly are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence,” said Michael Short, a White House spokesman.

MORE FROM REUTERS

* Kushner under FBI scrutiny in Russia probe: media reports

* Ireland looks set to elect gay premier in social, generational shift

* EXCLUSIVE: Kim Jong Un's 'rocket stars'

He added that the White House was confident the order would ultimately be upheld by the judiciary.

In its 10-3 ruling, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said those challenging the ban, including refugee groups and individuals, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violates the U.S. Constitution’s bar against favoring one religion over another.

Gregory cited statements by Trump during the 2016 presidential election calling for a Muslim ban. During the race, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslim’s entering the United States” in a statement on his website.

The judge wrote that a reasonable observer would likely conclude the order’s “primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs.”

The government had argued that the court should not take into account Trump’s comments on the campaign trail since they occurred before he took office on Jan. 20. But the appeals court rejected that view, saying they provide a window into the motivations for Trump’s action in government.

The appeals court questioned a government argument that the president has wide authority to halt the entry of people to the United States.

“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” the majority opinion said.

The Virginia-based appeals court was reviewing a March ruling by Maryland-based federal judge Theodore Chuang that blocked part of Trump’s March 6 executive order barring people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

A similar ruling against Trump’s policy from a Hawaii-based federal judge is still in place. That ruling went farther than Chuang’s order, blocking a section of the travel ban that also suspended refugee admissions for four months. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is still reviewing that decision.

‘WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING’

Trump has lashed out at the judges and courts that have ruled against him, saying the 9th Circuit has a “terrible” record and calling its rulings on his policies “ridiculous.”

The March ban was Trump’s second effort to implement travel restrictions through an executive order. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports before it was blocked by courts.

The second order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.

In an opinion that concurred with the majority on Thursday, Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote that the administration did nothing to distance itself from the first order, describing the revised ban as “the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Chief Judge Gregory, who wrote the majority opinion, was first installed in a recess appointment by Democratic President Bill Clinton and then nominated to the same post by Republican former president George W. Bush.

Nine other judges appointed by Democrats agreed to block the travel ban, while three Republican-appointed judges dissented.

“This to us is a complete win and overwhelming in terms of the votes,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case in the 4th Circuit.

FILE PHOTO: A U.S. Customs and Border Protection arm patch and badge is seen at Los Angeles International Airport, California February 20, 2014. REUTERS/Kevork Djansezian/File Photo

The dissenting judges said the executive order was constitutional and a valid exercise of presidential authority, and that Trump’s campaign statements should not have come into play. The order itself “contains no reference to religion whatsoever,” Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote.

The White House also pointed to a dissent by Judge Dennis Shedd that said “the real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm.”

Two other 4th Circuit judges, both appointed by Republicans, were recused from the case.</s>WASHINGTON — Describing President Trump’s revised travel ban as intolerant and discriminatory, a federal appeals court on Thursday rejected government efforts to limit travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim nations. Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The decision was the first from a federal appeals court on the revised travel ban, which was an effort to make good on a campaign centerpiece of the president’s national security agenda. It echoed earlier skepticism by lower federal courts about the legal underpinnings for Mr. Trump’s executive order, which sought to halt travelers for up to 90 days while the government imposed stricter vetting processes.

The revised order, issued on March 6, “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., concluded in its 205-page ruling.

The White House derided the court decision as a danger to the nation’s security. And Mr. Sessions, in pledging to appeal to the nation’s highest court, said the government “will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger.”</s>The federal appeals court in Richmond “refused to reinstate President Trump’s revised travel ban, saying it discriminated on the basis of religion,” the New York Times reports.

“The decision was a fresh setback for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. Mr. Trump had narrowed the scope of his first executive order, issued in January, in response to an earlier appeals court decision halting it. But the basic flaws in his approach remained, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled.”

“The case is now likely to go to the Supreme Court.”</s>A Virginia-based federal appeals court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s request to reinstate his revised executive order on immigration, saying the president likely acted with improper motives when seeking to temporarily bar U.S. entry for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries

.The executive order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination,” Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in an opinion for the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

The case was considered by the full Fourth Circuit, with 13 judges participating. Ten of those judges ruled against the president, and three dissented.

The ruling is another in a series of legal setbacks for the White House. It potentially sets the stage for review by the Supreme Court if the president makes good on his earlier pledge to appeal to the high court.

If the Supreme Court does intervene, the case would mark a major, highly unusual test of presidential power less than a year into the new administration.

An expanded version of this story is available at WSJ.com</s>Washington: In a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump, a US Appeals Court refused on Thursday to reinstate his temporary travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations, delivering another blow to the White House in a legal battle likely headed to the Supreme Court.

The decision, written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, described Trump's executive order in forceful terms, saying it uses "vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination."

In a 10-3 ruling, a majority of judges on the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the challengers to the ban -who included refugee groups and individuals - were likely to succeed on their claim that Trump's order violates the US Constitution's bar on favouring one religion over another.

Citing statements by Trump during his presidential election campaign calling for a "Muslim ban," Gregory wrote that a reasonable observer would likely conclude that the order's "primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs."

The appeals court was reviewing a March ruling by Maryland-based federal judge Theodore Chuang that blocked part of Trump's March 6 executive order barring people from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

A similar ruling against Trump's policy from a Hawaii-based federal judge is still in place and the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals court is reviewing that decision.

The Trump administration has argued that the temporary travel ban is a national security measure aimed at preventing Islamist militant attacks.

The March ban was Trump's second effort to implement travel restrictions through an executive order. The first, issued on Jan. 27 just a week after the Republican president took office, led to chaos and protests at airports before it was blocked by courts.

The second order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.

The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would make the final decision.</s>May 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia on Thursday refused to reinstate President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban for six Muslim-majority nations, in another legal blow to the White House.

A majority of judges on the appeals court, in a 10-3 decision, said they were "unconvinced" the travel order had more to do with national security concerns than a "Muslim ban."

The court also found the challengers were likely to suffer "irreparable harm" if the ban were implemented and that it might violate the U.S. Constitution.

The appeals court maintained the injunction against the travel ban in full.

The appeals court was reviewing a March ruling by a Maryland-based federal judge that blocked part of Trump's March 6 executive order barring travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

A similar ruling against Trump's policy from a Hawaii-based federal judge is still in place and the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals court is reviewing that decision. (Reporting by Mica Rosenberg, Dan Levine and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Chris Reese and Tom Brown)</s>In a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump, a U.S. appeals court refused on Thursday to reinstate his temporary travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations, setting the stage for a possible legal showdown in the Supreme Court.

The decision, written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, described Trump’s executive order in forceful terms, saying it uses “vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

The White House declined comment and referred questions to the U.S. Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration had said the temporary travel ban would prevent terrorist attacks.

In its 10-3 ruling, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said challengers of the ban, including refugee groups and individuals, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violates the U.S. Constitution’s bar against favoring one religion over another.

The case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could make the final decision. The government could also file an emergency application seeking to put the order into effect while the litigation continues.

Gregory cited statements by Trump during the 2016 presidential election calling for a “Muslim ban.” The judge wrote that a reasonable observer would likely conclude the order’s “primary purpose is to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs.”

The government had argued that the court should not take into account Trump’s comments on the campaign trail since they occurred before he took office on Jan. 20. But the appeals court rejected that view, saying they provide a window into the motivations for Trump’s action in government.

The appeals court questioned a government argument that the president has wide authority to halt the entry of people to the United States.

“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” the majority opinion said.

The Virginia-based appeals court was reviewing a March ruling by Maryland-based federal judge Theodore Chuang that blocked part of Trump’s March 6 executive order barring people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening.

A similar ruling against Trump’s policy from a Hawaii-based federal judge is still in place. That ruling went farther than Chuang’s order, blocking a section of the travel ban that also suspended refugee admissions for four months. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing that decision.

Trump has lashed out at the judges and courts that have ruled against him, saying the 9th Circuit has a “terrible” record and calling its rulings on his policies “ridiculous.”

The March ban was Trump’s second effort to implement travel restrictions through an executive order. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports before it was blocked by courts.

The second order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.

In a concurring opinion on Thursday, Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote that the administration did nothing to distance itself from the first order, describing the revised ban as “the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Chief Judge Gregory, who wrote the majority opinion, was first installed in a recess appointment by Democratic President Bill Clinton and then nominated to the same post by Republican former president George W. Bush.

Nine other judges appointed by Democrats agreed to block the travel ban, while three Republican-appointed judges dissented.

The dissenting judges said the executive order was constitutional and a valid exercise of presidential authority, and that Trump’s campaign statements should not have come into play. The order itself “contains no reference to religion whatsoever,” Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote.

Two other 4th Circuit judges, both appointed by Republicans, were recused from the case.</s>A federal appeals court Thursday upheld one of two bans on enforcing President Donald Trump's executive order restricting travel from six predominately Muslim countries.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, voted 10-3 to uphold a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland who declared in March that the president's revised travel order amounted to unconstitutional religious discrimination.

Campaign statements by Donald Trump, who originally called for a ban on Muslim immigration, "provide direct, specific evidence" of what motivated his executive orders — "President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States," the appeals court said.

The revised executive order "cannot be divorced from the cohesive narrative linking it to the animus that inspired it," the court said in an opinion written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory.

The Justice Department urged the court to lift the ban on enforcement. It said the executive order had a legitimate national security purpose, allowing the government to assess the reliability of background information on visa applicants from six countries associated with terrorism.

But that argument, the court said, "is belied by evidence in the record that President Trump issued the first executive order without consulting with the relevant security agencies."

After President Trump's first executive order was blocked in court, the president signed the second one, imposing a 90-day ban on travel from Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

Judge Paul Niemeyer, writing in dissent for himself and Judges Dennis Shedd and Steven Agee, said the majority wrongly gave itself the power to "search for evidence suggesting bad faith."

As for the government's claim that the president acted to protect national security, the dissenters said "none of the facts or conditions recited as reasons for the issuance of the executive order have been challenged as untrue or illegitimate."

In addition to the Maryland judge's ruling, the subject of Thursday's appeals court ruling, the executive order was also blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments May 15 on the government's efforts to lift that stay.

Both appeals courts would have to rule in the administration's favor to allow enforcement of the revised executive order. An appeal to the US Supreme Court seems certain, but it is unlikely the justices would hear the case before the fall.

Neither the White House nor the Justice Department had an immediate response to the appeals court ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing a group of refugee aid organizations and Muslim residents whose overseas relatives are seeking visas, declared victory on Twitter after the announcement, saying, "We won in 4th circuit Muslim ban case!"</s>The last time Trump publicly lost it over his revised travel ban was when a federal judge in Hawaii froze the executive order that shut down Visa issuance for six Muslim majority countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — for 90 days while blocking refugees for a 120 days. This order was tamer than Trump’s first executive order, which was protested at airports after the administration temporarily banned refugee entry from all those countries and Iraq. Despite the softening, a Maryland federal court also joined in blocking Trump’s revised ban, and now, the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals has upheld that court’s nationwide injunction.

Trump is currently surrounded by other heads of state at the NATO summit (and seemingly jostling them around to get a better place in line), but oh boy, he’s going to be upset about this. You can read the entire 205-page ruling at CNN, and on a breaking note, the New York Times explains the overriding reason (religious discrimination) why this ban shall not be reinstated:

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., on Thursday refused to reinstate President Trump’s revised travel ban, saying it discriminated on the basis of religion. The decision was a fresh setback for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. Mr. Trump had narrowed the scope of his first executive order, issued in January, in response to an earlier appeals court decision halting it. But the basic flaws in his approach remained, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled.

Trump’s first Muslim ban was mercilessly (and unanimously) killed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in early February. Trump threatened to see them in court as a result (which amused many people, although this latest ruling may go to the Supreme Court), but he’s yet to react to this defeat. Meanwhile, the ACLU is currently celebrating what many see as a victory against Trump’s harsh immigration policies.</s>A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, has declined to re-instate President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for three months.

In a ruling Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the order did amount to a Muslim ban: “Laid bare, this Executive Order is no more than what the President promised before and after his election: naked invidious discrimination against Muslims,” the appeals court judges said in their 205-page ruling.

The panel of 13 judges ruling in the case cited Trump’s tweets, television interviews and statements posted on his campaign website as evidence of his intent.

The panel heard arguments in the case in early May. An attorney for the government had argued that the Trump administration's second attempt to curb travelers and immigrants from some majority-Muslim countries had nothing to do with religion.

In March, a federal judge in Maryland blocked the travel ban, which itself was a revised version of one initially issued in January that was tweaked after encountering legal roadblocks. The appeals court judges did not think the second version was an improvement: “Significantly, in revising the order, the executive branch did not attempt to walk away from its previous discriminatory order. Instead, it simply attempted to effectuate the same discrimination through a slightly different vehicle -- the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

The Trump administration’s next recourse is to take the case to the Supreme Court. Appeals court documents say the administration has 90 days to do file an appeal.

A second appeals court, the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, is also considering an appeal of a stay against the travel order, this one issued by a judge in Hawaii. But any ruling from that court has been rendered moot by Thursday’s Fourth Circuit ruling.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refuses to reinstate Executive Order 13780 on the basis of religious discrimination, upholding the District Court for Maryland's March 7 ruling.