The justices nearly always have the final say when a lower court strikes down a federal law or presidential action.
"These clearly are very unsafe times, and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence", said White House spokesman Michael Short.
Short quotes one of the dissenters, Judge Dennis W. Shedd, in saying that the "real losers" are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened daily by those who seek to harm the U.S.
The case hinged largely on whether Trump's comments on the campaign trail - such as calling for a total shutdown on Muslims entering the country - should be used to determine the motive of the travel ban. But a second appeals court, the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, is reviewing the travel order on a wider basis, including the ban on refugees. Not only that, Brand USA generates an average of 50,900 new U.S. -based jobs annually from the increases in worldwide travelers to the U.S. The association also pointed out that Brand USA does not spend federal taxpayer dollars. He says looking at the order on its face, "it is entirely without constitutional fault". The 10-3 decision split directly down political affiliation, with the court's 10 Democrat-appointed judges joining in the majority opinion and three Republican-appointed judges dissenting.
During oral arguments this month, numerous 4th Circuit judges questioned the government's lawyer about the link between US security and the barring of citizens from the six countries identified by the administration. The countries were not chosen because they are predominantly Muslim but because they present terrorism risks, the administration says. The court was unconvinced that the travel ban was concerned with national security and is more likely an attempt at creating a "Muslim ban".
The broad, decisive ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit means the Trump administration still can not enforce its travel order that the government says is urgently needed for national security. However, Gregory wrote, the ban "in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination".
On January 27, Trump signed his original executive order, which barred people from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia and all Syrian refugees. "Rather then wait for yet another court to rule against it, Congress can and must take action that will end this discriminatory and risky policy once and for all". Maryland's 4 Circuit court has a historic reputation as conservative court friendly to national security cases.
The White House vowed to challenge an appeals court ruling that criticised a travel ban against six Muslim majority nations as being "steeped in animus", putting President Donald Trump on track for his first Supreme Court showdown. He said Thursday that the ban is unconstitutional. "The Constitution's prohibition on actions disfavouring or condemning any religion is a fundamental protection for all of us, and we can all be glad that the court today rejected the government's request to set that principle aside".
"Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute", Gregory wrote.
In Thursday's decision, the appeals court pointed to Kennedy's opinion and said the Trump administration had acted in bad faith.
Some of the 13 judges on the appeals court that heard arguments earlier this month seemed skeptical of the administration's argument.