A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld an earlier ruling that prohibited President Donald Trump's executive order banning travel from several majority-Muslim countries from taking effect.
The three justices, all appointed by President Bill Clinton, decided in the case of State of Hawai'i v. Trump, that in issuing the order earlier this year, Trump "exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress."
This marks the latest defeat in the courts for Trump's travel ban, whose constitutionality will likely be determined once and for all by the United States Supreme Court.
Here are five reactions to the latest court decision, including perspectives from liberal advocacy groups, the administration, and a conservative publication.
The Washington, D.C.-based group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed an amicus brief in the case against the Trump Administration, celebrated the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling.
Richard B. Katskee, legal director of Americans United, said in a statement released Monday that "President Trump is not above the law."
"This ban is blatantly un-American. It violates our nation's fundamental promise of religious freedom – that people have the right to believe or not as they see fit without fear of discrimination by the government," stated Katskee.
"If the Supreme Court decides to hear these cases, we hope and expect that it will affirm that Trump's ill-conceived order fosters religious intolerance and cannot stand."
The Trump Administration's Department of Justice took issue with the ruling from the Ninth Circuit, arguing that there are genuine national security issues at hand that justify the travel ban.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement released Monday that, echoing comments by Trump during his Middle East trip, "this is not about religion; it is about national security."
"The Executive Branch is entrusted with the responsibility to keep the country safe under Article II of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this injunction prevents the President from fully carrying out his Article II duties and has a chilling effect on security operations overall," said Sessions.
"The President is committed to protecting the American people and our national security, and we are proud to support his mission to put America first by defending his right to keep us safe. That is why the Department of Justice will continue to seek further review by the Supreme Court."
The National Immigration Forum, a Washington, DC-based immigration advocacy organization, celebrated the decision against the travel ban.
National Immigration Forum Executive Director Ali Noorani said in a statement released right after the decision was released that it was actually the travel and refugee bans of the Trump Administration that threatened national security.
"Beyond their likely unlawfulness, refugee and travel bans send the wrong statement to the world. They undermine our national security, not to mention our values, and they hurt our economy," stated Noorani.
"Our safety and security are priority No. 1. The administration can and should review its vetting procedures. But these proposed bans are not the way to prioritize real threats at home and abroad."
The editors of the conservative publication National Review released an editorial Monday evening denouncing the Ninth Circuit panel's decision.
National Review argued that the panel failed to appreciate the real danger of terrorism from the nations on the travel ban list and also ignored what the Constitution says about presidential powers.
"The entire opinion is written as if the threat from jihadists is impossibly remote ... Indeed, the entire opinion is written as if the pause were an outright 'ban' and dismisses completely the value of a short delay in immigration entry so that immigration officials may mount an internal review," argued the editors.
"When it comes to determining whether entry of a 'class of aliens' would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,' the president decides. The courts must defer."
National Review has been one of the leading conservative publications opposed to Trump. It's Feb. 2016 issue was devoted entirely to "Conservatives Against Trump."
The Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which filed an amicus brief in the case, hailed the decision by the Ninth Circuit panel.
CAIR National Litigation Director Lena Masri said in a statement Monday that she and her organization welcomed the ruling.
"Today's ruling once again demonstrates the near-unanimity of judges in ruling against any type of 'Muslim ban'," said Masri.
"We welcome this ruling and believe it and the previous rulings in different courts outline a clear path that the Supreme Court should follow."