The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday denied an en banc rehearing [order, PDF] regarding US President Donald Trump’s [official website] original immigration order. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] had previously withdrawn its appeal [JURIST report] regarding Trump’s original immigration order [case materials], which was filed after the Ninth Circuit denied a request to stay the proceedings [JURIST reports]. A judge on the Ninth Circuit called for a vote to hear the issue en banc, but the matter did not receive a majority vote in favor of the rehearing. The Ninth Circuit noted that the issue became moot since the DOJ had voluntarily withdrawn its appeal and mentioned that no party had moved to vacate the order denying the stay.

The ending of the challenge to the original immigration order comes amidst challenges to a revised immigration order [JURIST report] that Trump signed earlier this month. Two federal judges—one in Maryland early this morning and another in Hawaii [official websites] on Wednesday—issued temporary restraining orders [Hawaii order, PDF] on President Donald Trump’s new 90-day travel ban. Finding that the state had established a strong likelihood of success on the merits, Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson issued an opinion permitting continued travel from six predominantly Muslim countries listed on Trump’s order. The DOJ has vowed to fight for the ban, and Trump proposed the question go to the Supreme Court. As with Trump’s last travel ban, the new immigration order has engendered significant courtroom drama. Earlier this week, Massachusetts, California [JURIST reports], Maryland, New York, Oregon and Washington joined in a lawsuit [JURIST reports] opposing the ban. These lawsuits are premised on what JURIST guest columnist Jonathan Hafetz described as underlying racial discrimination [JURIST report] in the ban.