The lawsuits by Hawaii and the Maryland challengers argued that the executive order violated federal immigration law and a section of the Constitution's First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any particular religion.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case on Wednesday. An earlier, separate decision by an appeals court in Virginia had found that the order's primary objective was religious. In a March press call ASTA SVP Government and Industry Affairs Eben Peck said, "I think we're going to look at letting the dust from both bans settle a bit". The 4th Circuit found the policy unconstitutional on that basis. The 4th Circuit's ruling took that question head-on, agreeing that the ban officially disfavored Islam-as evidenced by Trump's campaign statements calling for a "total and complete shutdown" on Muslims entering the US -and was thus unconstitutional.
Wall suggested a briefing schedule that would run to June 21.
Trump faces new lawsuit alleging he violated the Constitution
The president called an earlier, similar lawsuit about the emoluments issue "without merit, totally without merit". Furthermore, it prohibits the president from accepting gifts or emoluments from state governments.
The latest ruling against the Trump administration's ban on travel from six Muslim nations is a particularly sharp blow to the president not because it is more sweeping than previous legal decisions - the 9th Circuit's decision is actually somewhat narrower than the district court opinion in the case - but because it reaches the same result for different reasons.
The Supreme Court brief filed by CCP and PPLI argues that the Supreme Court should take the travel-ban case in order to uphold precedents established in recent campaign finance cases, such as Citizens United v.
But the court is scheduled to end its term June 26, so that would seem to mean even if the court accepted the case, it would not be scheduled for argument until the fall. The president revoked the initial executive order when he issued the revised executive order in March.
Going forward, if either side wishes for appellate review of a class certification decision, it will have to seek permission from the court of appeal under Rule 23 (f). It is possible that this review might now resume and be completed soon. The 90-day period would be over, and the order would no longer be in effect. The new version, created to better withstand legal scrutiny, named six countries instead of seven - dropping Iraq - and spelled out more of a national security rationale. The GBTA recently forecast a $1.3 billion loss in overall travel-related expenditures in the US this year due to the ban, as well as other policies like the proposed expanded laptop ban and other political factors like Brexit.