The appeals court, though, said that "immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show".
Be Civil - It's OK to have a difference in opinion but there's no need to be a jerk.
Unlike other courts in the past, the three judges on the 9th Circuit did not dwell on Trump's public comments. The 4th Circuit found the policy unconstitutional on that basis.
The court said there's no finding that "present vetting standards are inadequate, and no finding that absent the improved vetting procedures there likely will be harm to our national interests".
They included the American Bar Association, former national security officials, technology companies, religious organizations, 165 members of Congress, refugee assistance groups, law professors and an organization that arranges for ill children in Iran to receive medical care in the U.S.
The courts rejected that argument saying the ban does not prove a link between an individual's nationality and their likelihood to commit a terrorist attack.
Watson ruled that the true goal of the temporary ban on travel from six mostly Muslim nations was to discriminate against Islam - not to protect national security. The Justice Department filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which is expected to announce in the coming weeks whether it will hear the case. It's now almost universally recognized as being unconstitutional and profoundly unjust, born of 'race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership, ' as a congressional apology put it.
The refugee programme is not at issue in the 4th Circuit case. It ruled based on immigration law, not the Constitution. Trump described the order, which replaced an earlier January 27 order that also was blocked by courts, as a "watered down, politically correct" version of his original plan.
The 9th Circuit on Monday ruled against the ban for a slightly different reason, arguing that the travel ban discriminates based on nationality, which is expressly prohibited by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
"We take judicial notice of President Trump's statement as the veracity of this statement 'can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, '" the court said.