The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump's controversial executive order.

Trump signed an order on March 6 that banned travellers from six Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The policy suspended travel to the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, and locked out most refugees.

U.S. courts have since limited the scope of that order. In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump's refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

A representative for the Hawaii attorney general, who challenged the administration in court, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Earlier on Tuesday, Hawaii said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still "bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country." All the 9th Circuit ruling did is "protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores," the state's lawyers added. </s> WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to broadly implement a ban on refugees entering the country from around the world.

FILE PHOTO: An international traveler arrives after U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban at Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. January 30, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

The justices granted a request from the Trump administration to block a federal appeals court decision that, according to the Justice Department, would have allowed up to 24,000 additional refugees to enter the United States than would otherwise have been eligible.

The Supreme Court ruling gives Trump a partial victory as the high court prepares for a key October hearing on the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial executive order, which banned travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and limited refugee admissions.

The March 6 order suspended travel for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures.

The order took effect in late June, following a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the scope of lower court rulings.

In a ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal U.S. residents would be exempt from the travel ban.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal that part of the 9th Circuit decision.

However, the 9th Circuit also ruled that Trump’s refugee policy was too broad, and the court allowed entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency.

The Justice Department appealed, and the full Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the administration in a one-sentence order.

Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA’s senior director of campaigns, said the refugee ban is inherently cruel.

“The Supreme Court today has dealt yet another devastating blow to vulnerable people who were on the cusp of obtaining safety for themselves and their families,” she said. “They continue to be subjected to unimaginable violence and fear while their lives are in limbo.”

Earlier on Tuesday the state of Hawaii, which challenged the policy, said in a court filing that the U.S. government could still “bar tens of thousands of refugees from entering the country.” All the 9th Circuit ruling did is “protect vulnerable refugees and the American entities that have been eagerly preparing to welcome them to our shores,” Hawaii’s lawyers added.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said he respected the Supreme Court’s decision and is preparing for the hearing there on Oct. 10. </s> The court issued a one-paragraph statement granting the administration's request for a stay of the latest legal maneuvering involving the president's executive order on immigration. There were no recorded dissents to the decision.

At issue is whether the president can block a group of about 24,000 refugees, who have assurances from sponsors, from entering the United States. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had interpreted a Supreme Court directive this summer to mean that such refugees should be allowed in, but the government objected.

The latest court actions are part of a complicated legal battle that began in January when President Donald Trump issued his first version of an entry ban. The Supreme Court is to consider the merits of his actions at a hearing Oct. 10.

The current case grows out of a Supreme Court decision in June that approved a limited version of a presidential order that temporarily blocked refugees and citizens of six majority-Muslim countries.

The justices said Trump could impose a limited version of the measure, but not on a person with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as having family members here, a job offer or a place in a U.S. university.

It is the interpretation of a "bona fide" connection to the United States that is being debated.

The government initially declined to include grandparents and other members of the extended family as meeting that standard, as well as refugees with formal assurances. A federal district judge said the government's reading was too broad and stopped it.

The Supreme Court largely upheld that ruling in July, although it put on hold the portion dealing with refugees.

Last week, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in, deciding that the administration could block neither grandparents nor refugees with assurances.

The Justice Department this week asked the Supreme Court to step in again - although only to block refugees, not grandparents and other relatives beyond the nuclear family. Even those refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency lack the sort of connection that should exempt them from the ban, the Justice Department argued in its new filing to the Supreme Court.

"The absence of a formal connection between a resettlement agency and a refugee subject to an assurance stands in stark contrast to the sort of relationships this court identified as sufficient in its June 26 stay ruling," Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in his filing.

"Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any free-standing connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies' assurance agreement with the government," the filing said.

In response, the state of Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, told the Supreme Court that the government's argument made no sense.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," wrote Washington lawyer Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii.

"By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat."

Time is beginning to become a factor in the broader fight over Trump's travel ban. The measure was supposed to have been temporary - lasting 90 days for citizens of the six affected countries, and 120 days for refugees. If the measure is considered to have taken effect when the Supreme Court allowed partial implementation, the 90 days will have passed by the time the justices hear arguments Oct. 10, and the 120 days are very likely to have passed by the time they issue a decision.

Some deadlines for reports have also seemingly passed. The Department of Homeland Security secretary was - within 20 days of the order taking effect - to have given Trump the results of a worldwide review determining what information was necessary from other countries to vet travelers. The countries that were not supplying adequate information were then to be given 50 days to begin doing so, and after that, top U.S. officials were to give Trump a list of countries whose citizens would be recommended for inclusion in a more permanent travel ban.

A Homeland Security spokesman said that a report was delivered to the White House in early July on the results of the review and that officials then went about assessing each country on the information it provided

He said Homeland Security officials were "evaluating the information received and will provide a report to the president in the coming weeks." </s> Washington: The US Supreme Court has temporarily blocked an Appeals Court ruling that put limits on US President Donald Trump's so-called 'refugee ban'.

The Justice Department on Monday had asked the Supreme Court to intervene so that officials could broadly enforce Mr Trump's travel ban and block even refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency from entering the United States.

The filing by Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall demonstrated the lengths the government was willing to go to impose its desired version of the ban.

At issue was whether the President could block a group of about 24,000 refugees with assurances from entering the United States after the Supreme Court decided in June to permit a limited version of his travel ban to take effect. The nation's top justices are scheduled to hear arguments next month on whether the ban is ultimately legal.

Since Mr Trump inked his first travel ban shortly after taking office, the directive has been mired in a complicated legal battle.

The President ultimately revoked the first ban – which blocked refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States – and replaced it with a less onerous version that blocked refugees and citizens of just six of the seven countries.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided Trump could impose that measure, but not on those with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as having family members here, or a job or a place in an American university.

It is how to interpret those that have a "bona fide" connection to the United States that is now being debated. The government initially sought to block grandparents and other extended relatives of people in the United States from entering – as well as refugees with formal assurances – though a federal district judge stopped from doing so. The Supreme Court in July largely upheld that ruling, though it put on hold the portion dealing with refugees.

Last week, a federal appeals court panel weighed in, deciding the administration could block neither grandparents nor refugees with assurances.

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to step in again – though only to block refugees, not grandparents and other extended relatives. Even those refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency lack the sort of connection that should exempt them from the ban, the Justice Department argued in a filing to the Supreme Court. </s> WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees.

The justices on Tuesday agreed to an administration request to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the refugee ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October.

The order was not the court's last word on the travel policy that President Trump first rolled out in January. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on Oct. 10 on the legality of the bans on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries and refugees anywhere in the world.

It's unclear, though, what will be left for the court to decide. The 90-day travel ban lapses in late September and the 120-day refugee ban will expire a month later.

The administration has yet to say whether it will seek to renew the bans, make them permanent or expand the travel ban to other countries.

Lower courts have ruled that the bans violate the Constitution and federal immigration law. The high court has agreed to review those rulings. Its intervention so far has been to evaluate what parts of the policy can take effect in the meantime.

The justices said in June that the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a "bona fide" relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely.

A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge's order that would have allowed refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in.

The administration objected, saying the relationship between refugees and resettlement agencies shouldn't count. The high court's unsigned, one-sentence order agreed with the administration, at least for now.

The appeals court also upheld another part of the judge's ruling that applies to the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Grandparents and cousins of people already in the U.S. can't be excluded from the country under the travel ban, as the Trump administration had wanted. The administration did not ask the Supreme Court to block that part of the ruling. </s> The Trump administration is seeking to close a legal window opened for tens of thousands of refugees to enter the United States, appealing a federal judge's order directly to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson had ordered the government to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States. His order also vastly expanded the list of U.S. family relationships that refugees and visitors from six Muslim-majority countries can use to get into the country, including grandparents and grandchildren.

In its appeal Friday night, the Justice Department said Watson's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling on what family relationships qualify refugees and visitors from the six Muslim-majority countries to enter the U.S. "empties the court's decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just 'close' family members, but virtually all family members. Treating all of these relationships as 'close familial relationship(s)' reads the term 'close' out of the Court's decision."

Only the Supreme Court can decide these issues surrounding the travel ban, the Justice Department said. "Only this Court can definitively settle whether the government's reasonable implementation is consistent with this Court's stay," it said.

On Saturday, the U.S. Justice Department asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to put Watson's ruling on hold while the Supreme Court considers its appeal.

The long, tangled legal fight is expected to culminate with arguments before the nation's high court in October.

Watson's ruling could help more than 24,000 refugees already vetted and approved by the United States but barred by the 120-day freeze on refugee admissions, said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, a resettlement agency.

"Many of them had already sold all of their belongings to start their new lives in safety," she said. "This decision gives back hope to so many who would otherwise be stranded indefinitely."

Citing a need to review its vetting process to ensure national security, the administration capped refugee admissions at 50,000 for the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, a ceiling it hit this week.

The federal budget can accommodate up to 75,000 refugees, but admissions have slowed under Trump, and the government could hold them to a trickle, resettlement agencies say.

"Absolutely this is good news for refugees, but there's a lot of uncertainty," said Melanie Nezer, spokeswoman for HIAS, a resettlement agency. "It's really going to depend on how the administration reacts to this."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had said the administration would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in, bypassing the San Francisco-based 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled against it in the case.

The Supreme Court allowed a scaled-back version of the travel ban to take effect last month.

"Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal executive branch related to our national security," Sessions said. "By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats."

The administration took a first step by filing a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit, allowing it to use a rule to petition the high court directly. There was no timetable for the Supreme Court to act, but the administration sought quick action to clarify the court's June opinion.

The justices now are scattered during their summer recess, so any short-term action would come in written filings.

The administration has lost most legal challenges on the travel ban, which applies to citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen.

The Supreme Court's ruling exempted a large swath of refugees and travelers with a "bona fide relationship" with a person or an entity in the U.S. The justices did not define those relationships but said they could include a close relative, a job offer or admission to a college or university.

The Trump administration defined the relationships as people who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

Watson enlarged that group to include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who sought the broader definition, said Thursday's ruling "makes clear that the U.S. government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit."

"Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough," Chin said.

Spagat reported from San Diego. Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego, Jennifer Sinco Kelleher in Honolulu, Sudhin Thanawala in San Francisco and Sadie Gurman and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report. </s> The Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his temporary travel bans from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees to go into effect for people with no connection to the United States while agreeing to hear his appeals in the closely watched legal fight.

The court, which narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked his March 6 executive order, said it would hear arguments on the legality of one of Trump's signature policies in his first months as president in the court's next term, which starts in October.

The justices granted parts of his administration's emergency request to put the order into effect immediately while the legal battle continues.

The court said that the travel ban will go into effect "with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."

The Supreme Court left the lower-court injunctions against the travel ban in place, but only with respect to the challengers to the ban themselves and others in similar circumstances, meaning they involve people in the United States who have relationships with foreign nationals abroad and whose rights might be affected if those foreigners were excluded from entry.

But the court said the injunctions were too broad to also include barring enforcement of the ban against foreigners who have no connection to the United States at all. "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.

The court also said it would allow a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect on the same grounds, allowing the government to exclude from the United States refugee claimants who do not have any "bona fide relationship" with an American individual or entity.

Three of the court's conservatives said they would have granted Trump's request in full, including Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch.

The case is Trump's first major challenge at the Supreme Court, where he restored a 5-4 conservative majority with the appointment of Gorsuch, who joined the bench in April. There are five Republican appointees on the court and four Democratic appointees.

The March 6 order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to enable the government to implement stronger vetting procedures. It was blocked by federal judges before going into effect on March 16 as planned.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But critics have called the order a mean-spirited, intolerant and un-American "Muslim ban."

The state of Hawaii and a group of plaintiffs in Maryland represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the order violated federal immigration law and the Constitution's First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any particular religion. Regional federal appeals courts in Virginia and California both upheld district judge injunctions blocking the order.

Trump signed the order as a replacement for a Jan. 27 order issued a week after he became president that also was blocked by federal courts. The revised order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, which also included Iraq among the nations targeted and a full ban on refugees from Syria. The revised order also jettisoned language that gave preferential status to persecuted religious minorities, which critics said could be taken as favoring Christians and other religious groups over Muslims.

Trump has called the March order a "watered down, politically correct" version of the January one. But the order still embodied his "America First" nationalist message and reflected his views of the dangers posed to the United States by certain immigrants and visitors.

The administration has said the travel ban is needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants. </s> A court decision on President Donald Trump’s travel ban has reopened a window to tens of thousands of refugees to enter the United States and the government is looking to quickly close it with an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — A court decision on President Donald Trump’s travel ban has reopened a window to tens of thousands of refugees to enter the United States and the government is looking to quickly close it.

The administration said Friday that it would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge in Hawaii ordered it to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson also vastly expanded the list of U.S. family relationships that refugees and visitors from six Muslim-majority countries can use to get into the country, including grandparents and grandchildren.

The ruling Thursday was the latest twist in a long, tangled legal fight that will culminate with arguments before the nation’s high court in October.

It could help more than 24,000 refugees who had already been vetted and approved by the United States but would have been barred by the 120-day freeze on refugee admissions, said Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, a resettlement agency.

“Many of them had already sold all of their belongings to start their new lives in safety,” she said. “This decision gives back hope to so many who would otherwise be stranded indefinitely.”

Citing a need to review its vetting process to ensure national security, the administration capped refugee admissions at 50,000 for the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, a ceiling it hit this week.

The federal budget can accommodate up to 75,000 refugees but admissions have slowed under Trump and the government could hold them to a trickle, resettlement agencies say.

“Absolutely this is good news for refugees, but there’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Melanie Nezer, spokeswoman for HIAS, a resettlement agency. “It’s really going to depend on how the administration reacts to this.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the administration will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in, bypassing the San Francisco-based 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled against it in the case.

The justices allowed a scaled-back version of the travel ban to take effect last month.

“Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal executive branch related to our national security,” Sessions said. “By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats.”

The administration took a first step by filing a notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit, allowing it to use a rule to petition the high court directly. There’s no timetable for the Supreme Court to act, but the administration will be seeking quick action that clarifies the court’s June opinion.

The justices now are scattered, so any short-term action would come in written filings.

The administration has lost most legal action on the travel ban that applying to citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen, severely blunting its impact.

The Supreme Court’s ruling exempted a large swath of refugees and travelers with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or an entity in the U.S. The justices didn’t define that connection but said it could include a close relative, a job offer or admission to a college or university.

The Trump administration defined the relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

Watson enlarged that group to include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who sought the broader definition, said Thursday’s ruling “makes clear that the U.S. government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit.”

“Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough,” Chin said. </s> Immigration rights activists chant during their May Day march in Washington to the White House to voice opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration policies on May 1, 2017. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to implement much of its revised travel ban, but also agreed to review the legality of the controversial executive order in October.

The justices lifted injunctions from two federal appeals courts that had blocked the order, which seeks to stop foreign travelers from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and suspend all refugees from entering the United States for 120 days. The rulings had stymied one of President Donald Trump’s major policy initiatives in his first months in office — moves that he argued are key for national security.

But the Supreme Court did limit the scope of implementing the ban signed in March. The justices ruled that the Trump administration could not enforce the ban against foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen or refugees from around the world who have a credible claim of a close familial relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

That would include those seeking to enter the country to live with or visit a family member, the court wrote in a decisionissued in a way that does not attribute it to any particular justice. Students who have been admitted to a university in the U.S., a worker who accepted employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience will also be admitted under the court’s ruling.

Trump praised the ruling, declaring in a statement that it is “a clear victory for our national security.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the court’s decision “recognizes that the Executive has the responsibility to protect the safety and security of the American people under the Constitution of the United States and its laws.”

Opponents of the ban, however, said they hoped it would affect a small number of immigrants and refugees.

“This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban,” Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrant’s Rights Project, said. “It’s going to be really important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the rules.”

Ahead of the court’s ruling, Trump issued updated guidance earlier this month for how his Cabinet secretaries should implement the executive order if the justices opted to lift an injunction blocking the ban. Under his memorandum, sections of the travel ban allowed by the court will take effect 72 hours from the time of the ruling.

The guidance said the effective dates for the order would be changed according to the time the injunction is lifted, Trump said in a memorandum to the attorney general, director of national intelligence and secretaries of State and Homeland Security.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissent joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that he would have allowed the government to enforce the travel ban in full.

“And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits — that is, that the judgments below will be reversed,” Thomas wrote.

The decision to allow the revised travel ban required the agreement of at least five justices and happened without oral arguments and out of the view of the public. It took only four justices to agree to hear the case.

The case draws the justices into a political and legal showdown over the ban that was a key part of Trump’s presidential campaign. But it also means the 90-day ban on travelers from majority-Muslim countries will have run its course by the time the justices hear the case.

The ACLU, which has fought the ban in court, said it is ready. “We’ll see him in court. #NoMuslimBanEVER,” the ACLU tweeted.

Two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel ban reached the same conclusion in different ways. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Virginia found the ban was likely unconstitutional in how it treats Muslims, while the 9th Circuit in San Francisco found Trump’s order exceeded his authority over immigration policy given to him by Congress.

Justice Department lawyers had urged the Supreme Court, if it wouldn’t immediately allow the government to implement the executive order, to consider an appeal on an expedited schedule. The justices obliged, agreeing to hear oral arguments in October, in the first sitting after its annual three-month summer recess starting Monday.

The administration argued in its application that preventing Trump from “effectuating his national-security judgment will continue to cause irreparable harm to the interests of the government and the public.”

The revised travel ban was Trump’s response to the botched rollout of his initial executive order in January, which sparked protests around the world.

The travel ban explains that the 90-day pause in travelers from the majority-Muslim countries is necessary, in part, to make sure dangerous individuals don’t enter the United States while the president works to establish adequate standards “to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists.”

The full 4th Circuit sided with advocacy groups who argued the order violates religious protections in the First Amendment that the government should not favor one religion over another. The 10-3 majority opinion relied on statements Trump made about on the campaign trail about a “Muslim ban” and other public comments

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that the president fell short of a statutory requirement to show that current protocols for entry of nationals from those countries would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Similarly, the 9th Circuit found that the challengers are likely to succeed because the executive order does not reveal any threat or harm to warrant suspension of all refugees for 120 days, and disregarded the procedures for setting annual admissions of refugees at 50,000, or less than half of the previous year.

The cases are Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, Docket No. 16-1436, and Trump v. Hawaii, Docket No. 16-1540.
The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Trump administration can block international refugees from entering the United States.