- Advertisement -
The judges said more briefing would be needed to decide the actual fate of Trump’s order.
The Justice Department, which spoke for the administration at oral argument on Tuesday, said it was reviewing the decision and considering its options.
The states of Washington and Minnesota challenged Trump’s order, which had sparked protests and chaos at U.S. and overseas airports on the weekend after it was issued. The two states argued that Trump’s ban violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination.
Asked about Trump’s tweet, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said: “We have seen him in court twice, and we’re two for two.”
While the court said it could not decide whether the order discriminated against a particular religion until the case had been “fully briefed,” it added that the states had presented evidence of “numerous statements” by the president “about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban.’”
The court said the government had failed to show that any person from the seven countries had perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.
The administration argued that the courts do not have access to the same classified information about threats to the country that the president does. The judges countered that “courts regularly receive classified information under seal.”
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 three judges said the states had shown that even temporary reinstatement of the ban would cause harm.
FINAL OUTCOME ‘NOT CERTAIN’
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.
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.
Two of the three 9th Circuit judges were appointees of former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican like Trump.
The government could ask the 9th Circuit to have a larger panel of judges review the decision “en banc,” or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will likely determine the case’s final outcome.
Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway told Fox News: “It’s an interim ruling and we’re fully confident that now that we will get our day in court and have an opportunity to argue this on the merits we will prevail.”
Asked if the administration would go to the Supreme Court, she said: “I can’t comment on that. … He will be conferring with the lawyers and make that decision.”
If the Trump administration appeals to the Supreme Court, it would need five of the eight justices to vote in favor of a stay blocking the district court injunction. That is likely to be a tall order as the court is evenly divided 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, meaning the administration would need to win over at least one of the liberal justices.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, said in a statement: “This victory should not lead to complacency. This and other Trump administration orders and policies still pose a threat to communities of color, religious minorities, women, and others.”
Democrats, the minority party in Congress, celebrated.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in an email statement: “This Administration’s recklessness has already done significant harm to families, and undermined our fight against terror. For the sake of our values and the security of America, Democrats will continue to press for President Trump’s dangerous and unconstitutional ban to be withdrawn.”
But Tom Fitton from the conservative group Judicial Watch said on Twitter: “The Ninth Circuit ruling is a dangerous example of judicial overreach.”
(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Noeleen Walder and Mica Rosenberg in New York; Writing by Lisa Lambert and Howard Goller; Editing by Peter Cooney)