"The Supreme Court can and should put a definitive end to President Trump's attempt to undermine the constitutional guarantee of religious equality and the basic principles of our immigration laws, including their prohibition of national origin discrimination", Jadwat said.
And on December 4, the justices took the unusual step of sweeping aside the injunctions handed down by several judges and allowing Trump's full travel ban to take effect, even though the cases were about to be heard by two appeals courts.
But the Supreme Court dismissed those appeals in October after the second ban expired.
Lower courts in California, Hawaii and other states have repeatedly ruled that Trump's order targets Muslims in violation of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court is now preparing to hear a challenge to the ban, in a case called Trump v. Hawaii, meaning the issue may finally be decided after a year or protests, edits, and reversals in the courts. For now, most citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen will be barred from entering the United States, along with some people from Venezuela.
DACA requests will be adjudicated under the guidelines set forth in the
The justices are likely to hear arguments in the latest case in the spring and to issue a decision in late June.
Trump's initial travel ban, decreed a week after he took office, triggered chaos out at U.S. airports, with travelers detained upon arrival, and nationwide protests against a measure seen as discriminatory - though Trump said it aimed to keep out extremists.
The ban restricts travel from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim.
They also said the ban does not adequately explain why people from certain countries are a danger: "The Proclamation makes no finding that nationality alone renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk or that current screening processes are inadequate".
The Supreme Court allowed the ban to take partial effect, but said those with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country.
The judge said a nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy". One provision, enacted in 1952, says the president may "suspend the entry of ... any class of aliens ... for such period as he shall deem necessary".