The lower courts never even had jurisdiction.
This ONLY belonged in front of the SCOTUS.
As I understand it, there is a statute giving the President the authority to do what he did and at the same time denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Constitution gives Congress the right to determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so the plaintiff in this case has to argue that the President is doing something the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to authorize him to do. That's why they are making this crazy religious discrimination argument
NO!!!!
The Constitution defines the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was decided on this issue, could Congress modify the jurisdiction of SCOTUS? No. The Constitution defines SCOTUS jurisdiction, and either the constitution controls, or a law contrary to the constitution controls. Given a conflict in source of law, the superior source (between Constitution and law) is Constitution.
What’s sad about the court rulings is that Trump could have said, “I don’t think Muslims are compatible with the US and create a danger to our country” and issued an order that he would exclude them from the US under the law. It didn’t matter what he said on the stump, or whether it was a Muslim ban (it wasn’t). But the lower courts brought in a constituional aspect to it that doesn’t apply to foreigners. Ridiculous, and it will be slapped down thoroughly and persuasively, but the press won’t report it accurately and the stupid democrats won’t understand anything other than that a conservative court ruled that Trump can ban muslims and be a bad person.