U.S. court says Trump travel ban unlawfully discriminates against Muslims

Good. The judges are saying that Trump's action was unlawful. Isn't unlawful another way of saying illegal? Trump and his big mouth. Will he ever learn?

in japan we say its a "grey area" and nothing will happen.

Wasn't this supposed to be a TEMPORARY ban (90 days) while INS beefs up the vetting process? They've had four times that 90 days to do so, and the ban would appear unnecessary.

Or is this another of those things where Trump put Kushner in charge and then ignored it?

Islamic countries can kill off Foreign nationals (Indonesia) or imprison them on a whim (Dubai), or even order a death sentence upon someone outside of their Country (Iran) - they don't appear to have any internal haggling over whether what they're proposing is right or not... unlike as in the US.

Regardless whether the Travel ban/Restriction upon "Muslim" majority, countries is right or not, what does Israel do with respect to travellers coming in from those Countries - surely Israel is at more danger from any perceived threat coming from them, rather than the US is ?

When this ruling reaches the SC, it will be overturned, too.

President Trump's travel ban is based on previously established Constitutional law; multiple presidents in the past have also banned travel and immigration from known dangerous countries.

These judges aren't ruling based on provisions outlined in the Constitution; they're ruling based on politics. As such, they need to be impeached and replaced by jurists who know the law. . . .

The country's constitution should be revisited every decade and allow the amendment Constitution because the world is changing rapidly and some of the law in the constitution has written is becoming obsolete and deference from the realty by the time the Constitution was written.

The American Democratic Party policy is very similar to the Australian Labor Party policy. Both Parties are pro-refugee and pro-Muslim. The Republican Party policy and its supporters are same as Australian Liberal party and its supporters. They see the Muslim refugees have created a social problem in their community and some former refugee Muslims are committing crimes and they have never gotten the job. The former refugee Muslim families have too many children and they do not work and Australian tax payers have to pay their Centrelink family allowance, Health Care and children education. Their opinion on immigration policy has changed and they do not welcome new immigrants coming to their country.

TheLabor Party was arguing about the percentage of crimes committed by the former refugees with the citizens. They said the children of former refugees will contribute to the nation, even though their parents have never gotten the job. Unfortunately, the convicted terrorists are the children of former refugees and some are the refugees.

The Judge must listen to the majority of citizens and not a minority group.

These judges aren't ruling based on provisions outlined in the Constitution; they're ruling based on politics.

If you say so.