(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> The Supreme Court partially reinstated President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority nations in June.

The revised ban is expected to be fully implemented around July 12.

The nation’s highest court agreed in June to take up the case and hear arguments in October.

Since Trump signed the executive order in January, the travel ban has been widely blocked by lower courts. Trump revised the order in March, and it too was blocked.

Here’s a look at the past decisions on the executive order.

Trump signed an executive order immediately barring entry into the U.S. for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The order, dubbed “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” also halted the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, but indefinitely barred all Syrian refugees from the country.

A federal judge in New York issued an emergency order blocking, in part, the executive order. U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly’s order temporarily barred the U.S. from deporting people who arrived with a valid visa or already completed refugee application.

As dozens of people were detained after their planes landed in the U.S., massive protests erupted at airports nationwide.

Two federal judges in Boston issued a temporary stay on the travel ban, putting on hold for seven days the enforcement of the executive order.

The ruling stipulated that previously approved refugees, valid visa holders and lawful permanent residents or travelers from the seven countries included in Trump’s order could not be detained or removed from the U.S. because of the executive order.

Senate Republicans squashed an effort by Democrats to overturn Trump’s executive order. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., objected when Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sought to bring a vote to reverse the order.

A Boston federal judged declined to extend a temporary injunction against the travel ban, leaving it in effect after the initial seven-day period ended on Feb. 5, pending appeal.

WHO ARE THE THREE JUDGES WHO HEARD ARGUMENTS ON TRUMP TRAVEL BAN?

But U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle temporarily blocked the travel ban nationwide after Washington state and Minnesota urged a nationwide hold on the executive order. Robart said the state “met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury.”

The Justice Department filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, imploring that the court reinstate Trump’s travel ban. The department said Robart’s ruling was “vastly overbroad.”

Sixteen state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit against the travel ban. Those states included: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

FEDERAL JUDGE IN DC DECLINES TO ACT ON TRUMP TRAVEL BAN

Nearly 100 tech companies, including Apple and Google, also filed an amicus brief in opposition to the ban.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals began to hear oral arguments from the Justice Department as well as lawyers from the states of Washington and Minnesota who opposed the ban.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided to uphold the suspension of the executive order.

Those judges were Michelle Friedland, appointed by former President Barack Obama; Richard Clifton, appointed by former President George W. Bush; and William Canby, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter.

Kellyanne Conway, a top advisor to the president, told Fox News that the court ruling “does not affect the merits at all” of the executive order.

“We are fully confident now that we will get our day in court and have the opportunity to argue on the merits, that we will prevail,” she said.

A federal judge granted an injunction blocking the travel ban from being implemented in Virginia.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema found an unconstitutional religious bias with the travel ban, thus violating the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Washington and Minnesota argued that their case against the executive order should proceed in lower court. The Justice Department argued in its own filing for a moratorium on the case until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides if a full court will review the case.

Later in the afternoon, a federal judge in Seattle ruled that the case could continue in lower court.

Texas Attorney Gen. Ken Paxton filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Trump’s executive order and asked the court to reconsider its decision to block the travel ban.

Trump signed a new executive order which barred travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days— removing Iraq.

The new order also exempted permanent residents and current visa holders from the travel ban.

It also did not include language that could allow for those of a certain religion to get preferential treatment, the New York Times reported.

Syrian refugees were still banned in the new executive order but only for 120 days instead of indefinitely.

The state of Hawaii moved to block the new executive order in court. The state’s attorney general, Doug Chin, said the travel ban would be detrimental to the state’s economy and educational institutions.

A federal judge in Hawaii halted the new executive order mere hours before it went into effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson temporarily halted the travel ban with a restraining order.

The Justice Department called the ruling “flawed both in reasoning and scope.”

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, sitting in Maryland, also temporarily halted the executive order.

Chuang argued that the order specifically targeted Muslims, and his ruling blocked the part of the travel ban that prevented the issuance of visas to people from the six countries.

Meanwhile, five Republican-appointed judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voiced their support of the legality of the executive order.

"Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President's decision was well within the powers of the presidency," the judges said.

Watson, the federal judge in Hawaii, extended his order that blocked Trump’s travel ban.

The Trump administration appealed Watson’s ruling with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began to hear the case of Trump’s travel ban to determine whether it’s an overreach on Trump’s authority.

This hearing was the first of two appeals in May; the other hearing is with the 9th Circuit in California.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to grant a request to halt Trump's executive order as two other judges already ruled to halt the travel ban.

The 4th Circuit blocked the Trump administration from implementing the travel ban.

“We remain unconvinced [the ban] has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban," the court said in its 10-3 ruling.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the Justice Department would request a review of the appeals court ruling from the Supreme Court. Sessions said the Justice Department “strongly” disagreed with the ruling and will continue to defend the order.

The court ruling blocked Trump’s “efforts to strengthen this country’s national security,” Sessions said.

President Trump, Sessions added, isn’t required to admit people from “countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism until he determines that they can be properly vetted” and that they do not pose a security threat.

The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to the U.S. Trump hailed the decision as a "victory for national security," but it's likely to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.

The nation’s highest court ruled Monday that justices will hear arguments in October in the case. Until then, the court said, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The State Department said it will implement the travel ban 72 hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling — meaning it will go into effect the morning of June 29.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. </s> President Donald Trump’s administration asked the US Supreme Court on Thursday to reinstate its temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim majority nations despite repeated setbacks in the lower courts.

In its filing, the government asked the top US court to rule on the legal standing of Trump’s order, appealing a ruling by the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a nationwide block of the travel ban.

It also asked the Supreme Court to lift another US-wide injunction issued by a federal judge in a separate case based in Hawaii. That case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is pending.

The administration is “confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said.

“The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism, until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”

The filing came one week after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dealt a fresh blow to Trump’s efforts to push the controversial travel ban that has triggered mass protests and confusion at airports.

The Fourth Circuit said it “remained unconvinced” that the part of the measure naming the specific countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had “more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the president’s promised Muslim ban.”

– “Indisputably high” stakes –

 It said it was unclear whether the government’s security concerns outweighed the plaintiffs’ concerns about discrimination.

The Court of Appeals “concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism,” the filing read.

That court’s decision “creates uncertainty about the president’s authority to meet those threats as the Constitution and acts of Congress empower and obligate him to do.”

Even if the Supreme Court takes the case, it is unlikely to hear it this term, which is due to end this month.

Trump issued his initial travel ban by executive order in January, but that measure — which banned entry to nationals from seven countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days — was quickly halted by the courts.

The administration said the travel ban was needed so it could evaluate existing screening methods protocols and set new ones.

A revised executive order in March meant to address concerns raised by the federal judges. It deleted Iraq from the list and removed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

The order however was widely criticized, including by human rights activists and US states led by Democrats.

Federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii issued a nationwide block on the measure, sending the issue to the relevant appellate courts.

Given the case’s high-profile nature, the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia heard the arguments last week — bypassing the usual initial three-judge panel — for the first time in a quarter of a century.

Thirteen of the court’s 15 active judges took part. Two recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.

This post was syndicated from Nigeria News, Headlines and Opinions – The Guardian Nigeria Newspaper. Click here to read the full text on the original website.

Do you something awesome to share with the world? Click here to share

Do you ever have any question about anything you wish to ask and get answer? Click here to ask

Also, Like us on facebook </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> 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> 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> WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Monday partially reinstated President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban targeting citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries, before examining the case in full this autumn.

The travel ban -- which was put on hold by lower court rulings -- will apply to those "who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," until the court hears the case in October, the justices ruled.

The decision is a win for the Republican leader, who has insisted the ban is necessary for national security, despite criticism that it singles out Muslims in violation of the US constitution.

Trump had suffered a series of stinging judicial setbacks over the measure, with two federal appeals courts maintaining injunctions on the ban.

Those courts had argued the president had overstepped his authority, and that his executive order discriminated against travelers based on their nationality.

"Immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show," the three justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling earlier this month.

"National security is not a 'talismanic incantation' that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power," they added.

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of those injunctions, saying the government could enforce its measure against "foreign nationals unconnected to the United States" without causing injury to the parties who filed suit.

Conversely, those with a "close familial relationship" in the US are not affected.

The revised measure, announced in March, seeks to bar from US entry travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as suspend the entry of refugees for 120 days.

The original measure, issued by executive order in January, also included Iraq on the list of targeted countries and had imposed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. </s> A federal judge in Hawaii has rejected a motion filed by that state seeking to limit the scope of President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban, parts of which were cleared to be implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said in a ruling Thursday in Honolulu that the Supreme Court is the proper venue to deal with the issue.

Hawaii argued that the government's plan for enforcing the executive order wrongly excluded grandparents and other relatives from the list of close family members who would still be able to get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force. Government lawyers argued against broadening exceptions, as sought by Hawaii and others.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26 that the administration could begin enforcing part the executive order until it makes a final ruling. The high court also agreed to take up the government's appeal of lower-court rulings which had blocked implementation of Trump's executive order.

"Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here," Watson wrote in Thursday's ruling.

Hawaii was one of the federal courts that blocked implementation of the travel order, which would limit for 90 days entry to the United States of those from six predominantly Muslim nations.

Critics claim that Trump's executive order is a "Muslim ban." Trump has claimed that the order is to protect Americans from terrorism.

Trump issued a second, revised order after the first one was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle and after the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals refused to reinstate it.

The revised order calls for a 90-day ban on issuing visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen who want to come to the U.S. But unlike the first executive order, this one does not apply to anyone who has already obtained a valid visa.

Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law would be subject to the ban.

The executive order also imposes a 120-day ban on refugees who have no "bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the United States. </s> WASHINGTON -- The fierce battle over U.S. President Donald Trump's travel and refugee ban edged up the judicial escalator Monday, headed for a possible final face-off at the Supreme Court. Travelers, temporarily unbound, tearfully reunited with loved ones at U.S. airports.

The Justice Department filed a new defence of Trump's ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations as a federal appeals court weighs whether to restore the administration's executive order. The lawyers said the travel ban was a "lawful exercise" of the president's authority to protect national security and said a judge's order that put the policy on hold should be overruled.

The filing with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest salvo in a high-stakes legal fight surrounding Trump's order, which was halted Friday by a federal judge in Washington state.

The judges are to hear arguments Tuesday.

The appeals court earlier refused to immediately reinstate the ban, and lawyers for Washington and Minnesota -- two states challenging it -- argued anew on Monday that any resumption would "unleash chaos again," separating families and stranding university students.

The Justice Department responded that the president has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" to the U.S. in the name of national security. It said the travel ban, which temporarily suspends the country's refugee program and immigration from seven countries with terrorism concerns, was intended "to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks."

The challengers of the ban, the Justice Department wrote, were asking "courts to take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the president himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."

Whatever the appeals court decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

It could prove difficult, though, to find the necessary five votes at the high court to undo a lower court order; the Supreme Court has been at less than full strength since Justice Antonin Scalia's death a year ago. The last immigration case that reached the justices ended in a 4-4 tie.

The president's executive order has faced legal uncertainty ever since Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robart, which challenged both Trump's authority and his ability to fulfil a campaign promise.

The State Department quickly said people from the seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- could travel to the U.S. if they had valid visas. The Homeland Security Department said it was no longer directing airlines to prevent affected visa holders from boarding U.S.-bound planes.

On Monday in Colorado, a graduate student who had travelled to Libya with her 1-year-old son to visit her sick mother and attend her father's funeral was back in Fort Collins after having been stopped in Jordan on her return trip. She was welcomed with flowers and balloons by her husband and other children.

Two Yemeni brothers whose family has sued over the travel ban, and who'd been turned away in the chaotic opening days of the order, arrived at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they were greeted by their father.

"America is for everybody," Aqel Aziz said after greeting his sons.

Syrian immigrant Mathyo Asali said he thought his life was "ruined" when he landed at Philadelphia International Airport on Jan. 28 only to be denied entry to the United States. Asali, who returned to Damascus, said he figured he'd be inducted into the Syrian military. He was back on U.S. soil Monday.

"It's really nice to know that there's a lot of people supporting us," Asali told Gov. Tom Wolf, who greeted the family at a relative's house in Allentown.

The legal fight involves two divergent views of the role of the executive branch and the court system.

The government has asserted that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, while Robart has said a judge's job is to ensure that an action taken by the government "comports with our country's laws."

His Friday ruling triggered a Twitter rant by Trump, who dismissed Robart as a "so-called judge." On Sunday, Trump tweeted, "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

States challenging the ban have been joined by technology companies, who have said it makes it more difficult to recruit employees. National security officials under President Barack Obama have also come out against it. A declaration filed by John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former secretaries of state, and others said the ban would disrupt lives and cripple U.S. counterterrorism partnerships without making the nation safer.

"It will aid ISIL's propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam," they wrote.

How and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before a higher court takes up the issue. Or the administration could change it in any number of ways that would keep the issue alive.

The bench also could be full, with a new ninth justice on board, by the time the court is ready to hear arguments. If Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed this spring as Senate Republicans hope, chances of a tie vote would disappear.

Associated Press writers Eugene Johnson and Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Matthew Barakat in Chantilly, Virginia, Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Colleen Slevin in Denver and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.
The Supreme Court of the United States partially reinstates President Donald Trump's travel ban and invalidates certain injunctions that were put on the order by two federal appeals courts earlier. Final oral hearings concerning the legality of the Executive Order 13780 will be held in October 2017 at the Supreme Court.