"S.C." may refer to the Supreme Court, where Trump has vowed to take his travel ban fight. Instead, they ruled that the travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal, and that violated immigration law. Denniston has written for us as a contributor since June 2011 and has covered the Supreme Court since 1958. That violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government officially favoring or disfavoring any religion, he said. Judges held that the order "runs afoul" of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits nationality-based discrimination.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Mr Trump's comments during his election campaign can be used as evidence that the executive order was meant to discriminate against Muslims, which would be against the USA constitution.
Another federal court has ruled against President Donald Trump's revised executive order limiting travel from six predominately Muslim countries - and like other courts, used his tweets against him. The court said the president was required to consult with Congress in setting the number of refugees that would be allowed into the country in a given year and could not decrease that number mid-year. The judges pointed to a June 5 tweet by Trump saying the executive order was aimed at "dangerous countries".
Due to these statutory defects, the court affirmed almost all of Watson's injunction.
"It is always hard to win an immigration case on constitutional grounds in the Supreme Court because immigration touches on foreign relations and national sovereignty issues", he said.
Sensex, Nifty end in green; public sector banks help market rally
But they decided not to go the whole hog as they waited for the US Federal Reserve's policy move later in the day. At 9.56 a.m, the Sensex was trading down 16.36 points or 0.05% at 31,087.13 with 21 components falling.
The court also ruled that the administration failed to "reveal any threat or harm to warrant suspension of [Notes:refugee admissions] for 120 days and does not support the conclusion that the entry of refugees in the interim time period would be harmful".
The court, based in San Francisco, also cited Trump's tweets about the need for "extreme vetting" as part of its decision not to reinstate the ban.
The Trump administration has already sought a Supreme Court review of the ruling.
A provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1952 gives the President the ability to exclude certain classes of foreigners if he makes a finding that their entry would be "detrimental" to the United States; another provision, passed in 1965, says that national origin itself can not be a basis for discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas. The court noticed that even the federal officials were skeptical how effectual the first executive order might prove. But Hawaii, which had successfully challenged the ban, earlier in the day had told the Supreme Court it had no objection to such a move. A Hawaii federal judge blocked the ban on March 15, referencing multiple statements by Trump and others administration members indicating the travel ban had a religiously motivated goal.
It keeps in place a decision by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii that he based largely on Trump's campaign statements calling for a "complete and total shutdown" of Muslims entering the U.S.