Each ruling took a different tack and used different reasoning to arrive at very similar conclusions.
Chair of the Committee on Migration for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin said he was "heartened" by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.
In a footnote, the judges cite a Trump tweet in support of their contention.
Bishop Joe went on to say: "Upholding the injunction will allow us to continue welcoming and serving refugees fleeing persecution".
An entry on the Supreme Court docket said that the administration can file its new brief on Thursday.
The White House memo "should be construed to amend the executive order" and was issued "in light of questions in litigation about the effective date of the enjoined provisions and in the interest of clarity", the White House said.
The Ninth Circuit, however, had upset Rule 23 (f)'s balance.
Jury asks another question in Bill Cosby case
The sequestered panel deliberated for four hours Monday night after hearing closing arguments on the sixth day of the trial. In those interviews, Cosby admitted to sexual contact with Constand and said they had previously had a romantic encounter.
Critics of the ban have asserted that the president's order was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment, in violation of the Constitution's separation of church and state. The Fourth Circuit court based the decision on Trump's public record of statements indicating his order was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment rather than national security concerns.
President Donald Trump once told opponents of his travel ban that he'd see them in court, and he's doing everything he can to keep that promise. The issue of how many immigrants and refugees the USA will allow also hangs in this tangled web of the revised executive order and various court decisions. Those briefs have been submitted.
Immigration activists, including members of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, rally against the Trump administration's new ban against travelers from six Muslim-majority nations, outside of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington, U.S., March 7, 2017.
But the court is scheduled to end its term June 26, so that would seem to mean even if the court accepted the case, it would not be scheduled for argument until the fall. These are not normal times, so there are a few options before the Court. The Supreme Court is weighing emergency applications in both cases, but is likely to act on them together.
Trump issued his initial travel ban on a Friday in late January, bringing chaos and protests to airports around the country. It is possible that this review might now resume and be completed soon.
Differences traditionally are put aside for a new justice's investiture, a short but formal and history-laden event that culminates in iconic photos of the chief justice and the new justice descending the Supreme Court's famous marble steps. The 90-day period would be over, and the order would no longer be in effect.
Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the "countries" that are inherently risky, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President's "travel ban". Will we then be looking for version three of the travel ban?