In a hearing Tuesday eveing, the Government took the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.
The Judges hold that the States have standing. They write "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy." It goes on to write, "Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution."
The Appeals Court writes in short, "although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."
The States asserted that Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities. Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
The ruling came in a challenge to Trump's order filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota. The opinion is here
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the case's final outcome.