A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries.

The Trump administration's travel ban suffered its latest defeat Thursday in front of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld an injunction blocking enforcement of the restrictions.

The appeals court in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump stayed its decision pending resolution of a related case that is already at the U.S. Supreme Court. That case, Trump v. Hawaii, will be argued in April.

“When we compromise our values as to some, we shake the foundation as to all,” Chief Judge Roger Gregory said in the majority ruling.

Nine of the judges held that the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim the travel ban violates the Constitution's establishment clause, and the court pointed to President Donald Trump's public statements—including his tweets—to bolster the decision against the administration.

“Examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the Proclamation itself, we conclude that the Proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam,” Gregory wrote. He added later: “Here the government's proffered rationale for the Proclamation lies at odds with the statements of the president himself. Plaintiffs here do not just plausibly allege with particularity that the Proclamation's purpose is driven by anti-Muslim bias, they offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President.”

Five of the nine judges in the majority also found that the challengers would succeed on their claims that the ban violates provisions in federal immigration law. Dissenting opinions were written by judges Paul Niemeyer, William Traxler Jr. and G. Steven Agee.

Cecillia Wang, the ACLU deputy legal director who argued the case in the Fourth Circuit, said in a statement: “President Trump's third illegal attempt to denigrate and discriminate against Muslims through an immigration ban has failed in court yet again. It's no surprise. The Constitution prohibits government actions hostile to a religion.”

Here's a snapshot of what some of the en banc judges had to say:

Judge Roger Gregory: On a human level, the Proclamation's invisible yet impenetrable barrier denies the possibility of a complete, intact family to tens of thousands of Americans. On an economic level, the Proclamation inhibits the normal flow of information, ideas, resources, and talent between the Designated Countries and our schools, hospitals, and businesses. On a fundamental level, the Proclamation second-guesses our nation's dedication to religious freedom and tolerance.”

Gregory: “The statutory question is this: whether the president has the congressionally delegated authority to enact modern-day analogs of the repealed Chinese Exclusion Act or nationality-based quota system. In light of legislative and executive practice spanning centuries, I conclude that he does not.”

Judge Paul Niemeyer: “This case involves an Article III court's bold effort to second-guess U.S. foreign policy and, in particular, the president's discretionary decisions on immigration, implicating matters of national security. Our constitutional structure forbids such intrusion by the judiciary.”

Niemeyer: “Without accepting the Proclamation's stated interest in national security, which the Proclamation explains in detail, the majority concludes that, based on comments made by the president during the presidential campaign and afterwards, the Proclamation cannot be enforced because it is a pretext for religious discrimination.”

Judge James Wynn Jr.: “Judge Niemeyer's assertion that this court must close its eyes to the president's own statements indicating that he intended for the Proclamation to give effect to his anti-Muslim animus—statements by 'the most knowledgeable and unimpeachable source of information' about the motivation behind the Proclamation's suspension on entry, id.—stands in sharp contrast to the approach the Supreme Court takes in most cases, including analogous cases involving religious discrimination.”

Judge Barbara Keenan: “Although the language of Section 1182(f) provides broad discretion to the president to suspend the entry of aliens or classes of aliens, that discretion is not limitless.  Rather, the language of the Proclamation permits the ban on entry of the designated nationals to remain permanently in force, effectively rewriting the INA in material respects.”

Judge Pamela Harris: “This case is remarkable because it features just that: a governmental decision-maker using his own direct communications with the public to broadcast—repeatedly, and throughout the course of this litigation—an anti-Muslim purpose tied specifically to the challenged action. The record of those statements, and their relation to the Proclamation, is canvassed ably by the majority, and by the district court in its thoughtful opinion, and I will not rehash it here. Suffice to say that this is not a case in which we need indulge in 'judicial psychoanalysis' of motive. It is all out in the open.”

 

The en banc Fourth Circuit ruling is posted in full below: