The Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch”.
The case will eventually end up back in the Supreme Court.
The December 4 decision suggests America’s top judicial body may ultimately rule in favor of the administration, say legal analysts.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the White House was “not surprised” by the Supreme Court’s decision.
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the ruling “a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people”.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said President Trump’s re-tweeting of British far-right videos last week showed his discrimination against Islam.
Donald Trump insisted his ban was necessary for national security and pointed to terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Brussels and Berlin as evidence.
However, in striking it down, federal judges have cited President Trump’s campaign description of his policy as a “Muslim ban” and his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.
Lower courts across the US have said President Trump’s policy violated the first amendment of the US constitution covering freedom of religion.
Those who already hold valid visas are not affected. Dual nationals who travel on their passport from the unaffected country will also be allowed entry.
The rules come into effect at 20:00 Washington time.
However, lawyers both for and against the ban have warned that the new restrictions – which will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling – could open the door to a flood of legal challenges.
However, the Supreme Court will not be reviewing the case until October – which will mean the 90-day period will be largely done.
The court also approved the 120-day ban on refugees entering the US, allowing the government to bar entry to refugee claimants who do not have any “bona fide relationship” with an American individual or entity.
President Donald Trump is considering a new executive order to ban citizens of certain countries from traveling to the US after his initial attempt was overturned in the courts.
He told reporters on Air Force One that a “brand new order” could be issued as early as February 13 or 14.
The president made the announcement after an appeals court in San Francisco upheld a court ruling to suspend his original order.
The executive order barred entry from citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.
It is unclear what a new US immigration order might look like.
Donald Trump said that it would change “very little”, but he did not provide details of any new ban under consideration.
Image source Getty Images
Despite his suggestion on February 10, President Trump’s administration may still pursue its case in the courts over the original order, which was halted a week ago by a Seattle judge.
“We’ll win that battle,” he told reporters.
Donald Trump added: “The unfortunate part is it takes time. We’ll win that battle. But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order.”
An unnamed judge from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which on February 9 upheld the stay on the original order, has called on all 25 judges of that court to vote on whether to hear the appeal again.
Technically known as an en banc review, a second hearing of the case would involve an 11-judge panel, rather than the three who initially heard the appeal.
Donald Trump’s travel ban, which was hastily unveiled at the end of his first week in office, caused chaos at US airports and sparked protests across the country.
On February 9, the appeals court said the administration failed to offer “any evidence” to justify the ban, which the president said was necessary to keep the US safe from terror attacks.
However, Donald Trump insisted that the executive order was crucial for national security and promised to take action “very rapidly” to introduce “additional security” steps in the wake of the court’s decision.
The president spoke as Virginia state lawyers argued in court that his policy “resulted from animus toward Muslims”.
Their challenge focuses on the travel restrictions imposed by the ban, rather than the four-month suspension of refugee admissions.
Lawyers for the US government in Virginia wrote that “judicial second-guessing” amounted to “an impermissible intrusion” on Donald Trump’s constitutional authority.
The appeals court ruling means that visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can continue to enter the US, and refugees from around the world, who were also subject to a temporary ban, are no longer blocked either.
However, the ruling does not affect one part of Donald Trump’s controversial executive order: a cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the current fiscal year, down from the ceiling of 110,000 established under President Barack Obama.
The DoJ has defended President Donald Trump’s immigration ban and urged an appeals court to reinstate it in the interests of national security.
In a 15-page brief it argued it was a “lawful exercise of the president’s authority” and not a ban on Muslims.
President Trump’s executive order temporarily banned entry for all refugees and visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.
A hearing has been set for today on whether to allow or reject the ban.
The filing was made to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the halting of Donald Trump’s order on February 3 by a federal judge in Washington state.
Image source Flickr
The judge had ruled the ban was unconstitutional and harmful to the state’s interests.
As a result, people from the seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – with valid visas were able to travel to the US again.
The brief filed on February 6 said the Washington court had “erred in entering an injunction barring enforcement of the order”.
“But even if some relief were appropriate, the court’s sweeping nationwide injunction is vastly overbroad,” the DoJ added.
President Trump’s executive order issued on January 25 fulfilled his campaign promise to tighten restrictions on arrivals to the US.
It caused confusion at US and foreign airports when it came into force, and was widely condemned, although polls suggest that US public opinion is sharply divided on the policy.
The states of Washington and Minnesota have argued that as well as being unconstitutional, the travel ban is harmful to their residents, businesses and universities.
Attorneys general in 16 states have signed a letter condemning the ban, and lawsuits have been launched in 14 states.
Former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright and former CIA director Leon Panetta have joined others in drafting a letter which describes the travel ban as ineffective, dangerous and counterproductive.
Lawyers for tech giants including Apple and Google have also lodged arguments with the court, saying that the travel ban would harm their companies by making it more difficult to recruit employees.
President Donald Trump has fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she questioned the legality of his immigration ban.
Sally Yates, who had been appointed under President Barack Obama, earlier ordered justice department lawyers not to enforce the president’s executive order.
Dana J. Boente, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, replaced Sally Yates as acting attorney general.
He has directed the department to enforce Donald Trump’s order.
In a statement, the White House said Sally Yates had “betrayed” the department.
Donald Trump’s order temporarily banned nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, and sparked street protests in the country and abroad.
In a letter, Sally Yates had said she was “not convinced” that the president’s order was lawful.
She said: “As long as I am the acting attorney general, the department of justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order.”
Within hours, the White House announced: “President Trump relieved Ms Yates of her duties.”
Image source Wikipedia
Sally Yates had “betrayed the department of justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States”, a statement from the press secretary said.
The statement also described her as “weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration”.
Sally Yates’ replacement, Dana Boente, was also appointed by Barack Obama, in 2015. He was confirmed by the US Senate – making him eligible for appointment while President Trump waits for his own nominee to be approved.
Senator Jeff Sessions is awaiting a confirmation hearing for the role later this week.
Meanwhile, hundreds of diplomats and foreign servants have been drafting a “dissent cable” to formally criticize Trump’s executive order.
A draft version of the cable said that immigration restrictions will not make the US safer, are un-American and will send the wrong message to the Muslim world.
The ban bars citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
The White House has consistently defended Donald Trump’s executive order despite the controversy, with press secretary Sean Spicer saying diplomats should “get with the program”.
In addition, former President Barack Obama has apparently broken with the convention of former presidents avoiding comment on their successors.
Commenting on the protests about the immigration order, Barack Obama said he was “heartened”.
In a statement, which did not mention Donald Trump by name, Barack Obama said: “Citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organise and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”
Donald Trump also replaced the acting director of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Daniel Ragsdale, who has been in the post since January 20. He is the former deputy director.
The president appointed Thomas Homan, the executive associate director of enforcement and removal, as the new acting director.
A statement from the Department of Homeland Security announcing the change did not explain the reason for it.
Donald Trump has been urged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to apologize to a Muslim protester ejected from one of his rallies.
CAIR said Rose Hamid’s eviction from the rally in South Carolina sent a “chilling message to American Muslims”.
Rose Hamid was removed after making a silent protest on January 8.
Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States has been widely condemned.
During the rally in the town of Rock Hill, Rose Hamid stood up wearing a T-shirt bearing the words: “Salam, I come in peace.”
“Salam” is the Arabic word for peace.
When Rose Hamid stood up, the crowd around her began chanting “Trump! Trump!” as they had reportedly been instructed to do in the event of any interruption.
Rose Hamid, a 56-year-old flight attendant, was then told by a security officer that she had to leave. She was booed as she was escorted out.
CAIR said that as well as apologizing to Rose Hamid, Donald Trump should “make a clear statement that American Muslims are welcome as fellow citizens and as participants in the nation’s political process”.