In December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the third ban illegal.
The announcement was celebrated by opponents of the ban.
"The courts below", Mr. Francisco wrote, "have overridden the president's judgments on sensitive matters of national security and foreign relations, and severely restricted the ability of this and future presidents to protect the nation". They prevailed before a Federal District Court there and before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.
The original order issued last January barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya - from entering the USA for 90 days.
The US administration has rewritten the ban twice, adding more national security justifications in the latest iteration in September and including citizens of North Korea and Venezuela to counter the argument the government was singling out Muslim countries.
"We have always known this case would ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court", said Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin.
This ban dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and stated it was a 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen that did not apply to travellers who already had valid visas. In that ruling they delivered a partial spanking to lower-court judges who'd blocked the policy, saying the president deserved some deference in national security decisions, but foreigners with genuine ties to the USA - such as admission to a school, or family already here - also had rights.
Late past year, the justices allowed the entire travel ban issued in September to go into effect pending appeal. But both sides urged the Supreme Court to consider both the statutory and constitutional questions if it agreed to hear the case.
But the high court said lower courts were wrong to apply the same limits to the new policy, at least while it is being appealed.
That move suggested the court's conservatives were exasperated by liberal trial judges issuing sweeping nationwide orders that rejected the president's plan.
A third version would be permanent and the Associated Press (AP) said the White House had argued it was the product of a thorough review by several agencies.
The administration is challenging a January 9 decision by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ruled that DACA must remain in place while the litigation is resolved.
In response, the challengers said the policy violates the Constitution because it is biased against Muslims and also violates immigration law.
