Update, 330pm PT: Aaaaand it looks like the White House just issued statements that reverse everything they said a half hour ago.
White House changes earlier statement, says it may take fight over temporary halt of travel order to Supreme Court https://t.co/rkUjbpFFyG
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 10, 2017
A tale of two news alerts that landed 30 minutes apart. pic.twitter.com/8mLH5DsB4q
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) February 10, 2017
Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump lost his #MuslimBan appeal in court and subsequently tweeted 'SEE YOU IN COURT!' to the courts, he flip-flopped. Like he does.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid legal setback, President Donald Trump says he's considering signing a 'brand new order' on immigration.
— darlene superville (@dsupervilleap) February 10, 2017
Priebus now telling reporters: "Every single court option is on the table, including an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision"
— Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) February 10, 2017
An unnamed White House staff member today told CNN Trump will not be seeing the court in court, which probably terrified the court, which would of course be scared of being a court.
The administration is now promising some kind of do-over on Trump's January executive order intended to halt entry into the U.S. from seven primarily Muslim nations.
"No rush" is a bad look when your executive order is based on a supposed national security emergency.
— Ian Samuel ? (@isamuel) February 10, 2017
WSJ: Trump tells reporters on Air Force One that he'll rewrite travel order and will win court battle, but is mulling other options
— Jacob Gershman (@jacobgershman) February 10, 2017
The decision to not go to the Supreme Court comes as the White House is examining several options to save President Donald Trump's controversial executive order on immigration, sources say.
The White House is working on "possible tweaks" to the executive order, according to a source in close contact with the White House on national security issues. Another possibility is writing a new order altogether, a source familiar with the process said.
A new order would be more narrowly tailored than the one issued two weeks ago, the source said, such as explicitly stating that it does not apply to legal permanent residents.
An administration official familiar with the process tells CNN the possibility of issuing a new or revised executive order is being contemplated, but nothing has been confirmed.
"Nothing's off the table," one White House official said.
Questions on next steps have swirled since Thursday evening when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift of temporary restraining order on Trump's executive order barring foreign nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and all refugees from Syria indefinitely.
And about this next passage, I wonder if this unnamed source taking the Trump administration's Department of Justice representative out to the woodshed was… Spicey? Trump has a long history of never taking responsibility for any failures, and of blaming those nearest to him, and punishing them. He is nothing if not consistent. Again, from CNN:
An official tells CNN that administration officials were not happy with the DOJ lawyer's performance during the oral arguments before the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit and thought he was not as prepared as he should have been for the arguments against Washington and Minnesota, the states that challenged Trump's executive order.
The source said it's clear the judges asked more about merits than the government lawyer anticipated, and he stumbled on simple arguments concerning the states' standing, or ability to challenge, the order.
The Trump train looks wobblier every day.
A judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the full court to vote whether they want the full court to re-hear the travel ban case pic.twitter.com/2bPA5PSKhc
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) February 10, 2017
It takes a majority of judges to vote to hear case "en banc," and if ordered it ordinarily means 11 judges (Chief and 10 picked random) /3
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) February 10, 2017
Document here: https://t.co/8OYeLKFoGk https://t.co/tm9vxcVqPI
— Joe Palazzolo (@joe_palazzolo) February 10, 2017
Here's what Trump said aboard AF1 about potentially signing a new executive order on immigration, via pool pic.twitter.com/dSA0sjlTjj
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) February 10, 2017
Donald Trump advisor Stephen Miller defends travel ban in our new interview https://t.co/QukoaZdAUh pic.twitter.com/LBEHrmidME
— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) February 10, 2017
An executive order by POTUS cites a section of U.S. law that doesn't exist, per ProPublica. https://t.co/tHngbTihdV pic.twitter.com/14WkqfhcnJ
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) February 10, 2017
SEE YOU IN COURT
or idk maybe I'll just see you around, whatever works https://t.co/IfUB2nOHWZ pic.twitter.com/N1zzEKLCOF
— Mark Berman (@markberman) February 10, 2017
An executive order by POTUS cites a section of U.S. law that doesn't exist, per ProPublica. https://t.co/tHngbTihdV pic.twitter.com/14WkqfhcnJ
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) February 10, 2017
…the **FOOD** COURT! https://t.co/dY3nvaMBYO
— Ann Hornaday (@AnnHornaday) February 10, 2017
Interesting… pic.twitter.com/WZniaGVbKQ
— Jacob Gershman (@jacobgershman) February 10, 2017