US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed the Seattle federal judge's TRO to remain in effect. The reasoning seems to pretty much stay with what I noted about the Trump & Co arguments from the previous: there is no obvious pressing threat from the seven Muslim-majority nations indicated in the EO, and the courts have every right to review the legality of what the order means to accomplish.
In this case, the court found in their decision that the Trump argument regarding what the order was supposed to accomplish probably did amount to a "Muslim ban". You know what? This sort of thing was what Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was talking about when she was referencing the indefensibility of the Muslim ban. The fake urgency about terrorism that Trump has been pushing from the bully pulpit to try and make more people scared enough to think his ban is a great idea? Is what his unconvincing interlocutors KellyAnne Conway and Sean Spicer have dissembled about with references to the "Bowling Green Massacre" and a rather dumb repeated reference to Atlanta--which might mean Orlando, which still doesn't apply, and the equally unconvincing list of "attakers".
Thin gruel, in other words.
So will this go all the way to the Supreme Court? Which is what I think President Trump's odd "SEE YOU IN COURT!" Tweet is about, even though the Ninth Circuit and Justice Robart's courts were also, well, court? Well, it's hard to say if they would take it up, but if they did, I don't think Trump is going to have his 9th man snuck in and at 4-4, the TRO remains. He shouldn't want this to go to the Supreme Court. He should actually try to see if another rewrite will be closer to the Giuliani ideal of being a Muslim ban, but legal.
Also, Trump would need to get a Solicitor General who is a mean sumbitch that wants the job. He picked Chuck Cooper, who decided he didn't want the job. (Because, Cooper explains, he didn't want dragged through the dirt like his good friend Jeff Sessions, who did get confirmed US AG regardless. But maybe he wondered if there was a limit to what can be defended? Odd, given all that he has.)
(As an aside, although I hate to say this, but from a conservative POV, Ted Cruz would probably be the jawn as a US Solicitor General. He's just a really gifted legal mofo. :shrug: Trump people needn't take my word for anything.)
But until Team Trump gets their shit together, the ban is a "nope". And this is a very good thing.