Both judges cited Trump's discriminatory statements about Muslims during his presidential campaign as a part of their rulings.
The conflict illustrates the deep divide among judges over whether states and US citizens can mount constitutional challenges to presidential orders affecting the rights of non-citizens outside USA borders.
The Ninth Court of Appeals will not rehear the case regarding President Trump's original travel ban, the court announced Wednesday.
"We look forward to defending this careful and well-reasoned decision in the appeals court", he says, referring to Judge Theodore D. Chuang's decision to grant the preliminary injunction. The judge dissented yesterday on the executive order in a 43-page ruling, claiming that the executive order failed to meet necessary legal requirements, and that his state had established "a strong likelihood of success" that the ban would promote religious discrimination.
But the opinion decried "the personal attacks" by parties to the case on judges who blocked the president's first executive order, including U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart in Seattle and the three appellate judges who upheld Robart.
Today, another federal judge presiding in Maryland also made a decision to block the executive order.
Bybee said the ad hominem attacks didn't help Trump make his case. But the judge said in a court filing Wednesday that "personal attacks" on the district court judge and 9th Circuit judges who blocked the administration's first travel ban were "out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse".
"Above all, in a democracy, we have the duty to preserve the liberty of the people by keeping the enormous powers of the national government separated", he wrote, adding that he believes the President has the authority to block foreign travelers and courts must defer to the President's judgment in decisions about who should be allowed in the U.S.
"This is.an unprecedented judicial overreach". Another federal judge in Maryland also issued an injunction against the travel ban, which critics say is a thinly veiled ban on Muslim immigration. (Federal judge Leonie Brinkema, whose injunction on the original order in Virginia Watson heavily relies on, also quoted Giuliani - and also left out that crucial bit.) While Judge Watson writes that "the Government appropriately cautions that, in determining objective, courts should not look into the "veiled psyche" and "secret motives" of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a 'judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts, '" that is, in fact, exactly what he does. He also said the 9th Circuit hearing on his order was "sad" and "disgraceful". It omitted Iraq from the list of barred countries, removed references to religion and excluded green card holders and people who already had visas, among other changes.
A majority of judges voted against reconsidering the matter.
"We're going to win. The need for my executive order is clear".