A US federal appeals court decided unanimously Thursday to uphold the temporary suspension of President Donald Trump's travel ban that restricted people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. While it seems the president plans to move the US Supreme Court, here are the reactions his tweet garnered.
The 90-day ban affected people from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Immigration officials across the country detained for several hours many travelers with valid visas.
The appeals court panel consisted of two judges appointed by Democrats - Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland, an Obama appointee, and Judge William C. Canby Jr., an appointee of Jimmy Carter - and one by a Republican, Judge Richard Clifton, who was appointed by George W. Bush.
The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities.
The measure was suspended last Friday in a lower federal court, re-opening USA borders to the thousands of refugees and travellers who had been suddenly barred from the country. Trump cited "terrorism concerns" as the reason behind the order. "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".
They concluded that "these competing public interests do not justify a stay".
However, the appeals court justices expressed doubt that Mr Trump's government would be successful if it launched another appeal.
Trump had says the order is vital for national safety and has criticised Robart, t for suspending it.
The ruling means migrants, visitors and refugees from the affected countries can continue to travel to the U.S. if they have valid visas or green cards - something which Mr Trump had attempted to stop with his executive order.
Instead, the appeals judges teed up the issue for further review, saying it's "well established" that evidence outside the text of a law can be considered in cases that consider these "significant constitutional questions". Robart ruled in favor of the states of Washington and Minnesota who brought the case, arguing that the ban was unlawful, as well as a threat to both national security and the economy, the New York Times reported.
- Android Wear: The bloatware that turned into gloatware
- Rio Tinto rides commodities recovery to deliver 12% earnings climb
- Russian Federation banned from London World Championships
- Oil Declines on Speculation US Supply Gains Will Counter OPEC
- Malcolm Turnbull shrugs off White House's name and shame
- Hot Wheels DLC Cars Come to Rocket League on February 21
- Shares fall in Thomas Cook as results disappoint
- Yemen withdraws consent for United States ground operations
- Israel begins demolition of Amona settlement outpost
- United Kingdom tourists face European Union roaming charges post-Brexit