President Trump's revised travel ban via executive order from from six predominately Muslim countries has been shot down by another federal court and like other courts, used his tweets against him.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is another loss from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump's original executive order on travel in February.
"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the three judges, all appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. "(I)mmigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show."
The judges cited Trump's latest tweets in the travel ban saga.
"That's right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!" Trump tweeted on June 5.
"Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the 'countries' that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President's 'travel ban," the judge wrote.
The judges also cited White House press secretary Sean Spicer's confirmation that the President's tweets are "considered official statements by the President of the United States."
The judges largely affirmed US District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision from March which found the core provisions of the revised executive order — temporarily blocking all refugees and foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US — likely violated the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims, but on slightly different grounds.
With that said, it comes as no surprise that the administration is reviewing the decision and said it believes the travel ban is "lawful" and will be ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on Monday's ruling.
Monday's ruling will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is already considering a similar case from the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia.