Appeals court judge wants vote on whether to reconsider travel ban ruling

Appeals court judge wants vote on whether to reconsider travel ban ruling
© Getty Images

A judge on a San Francisco-based appeals court has requested that the entire court vote on whether to review a three-judge panel’s decision to not reinstate President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump signs bill averting shutdown after brief funding lapse Privacy, civil rights groups demand transparency from Amazon on election data breaches Facebook takes down Trump campaign ads tying refugees to coronavirus MORE’s travel ban.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the administration and the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, to file legal briefs by next Thursday with their opinions about whether the ruling should be reviewed “en banc.” 


That process would task an 11-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case. The three-judge panel unanimously declined to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees on Thursday evening. 

The news comes as the White House has said it would likely not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or have it reviewed en banc, and instead said it would fight for the controversial policy in a lower district court in Seattle. But White House chief of staff Reince Priebus subsequently said that the administration is still considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Trump also told reporters on Friday that he is considering signing a “brand new order” on immigration and refugees. Reworking the ban to be narrower could give it a better chance of holding up in court.

The three-judge panel that heard the case this week included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaUnseemly brawl unlikely to change a thing It's now up to health systems to solve our food problems Testing the Electoral College process against judicial overreach MORE appointee.

The judge who requested the vote on whether to review the ruling is unknown. A majority of the court's active judges would need to agree to rehear the case.