Judge John G. Gorsuch has denied that he will rule on whether President Donald Trump’s executive order against immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries is constitutional.
But he did say that the administration is likely to ask the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case soon.
“The Department of Justice and I intend to file briefs together with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on whether the Executive Order is constitutional,” Gorsuch said in an email to a reporter.
“I am hopeful that we will get a decision in that matter soon.”
The court has been split 4-4 between liberals and conservatives.
A four-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, which hears appeals from the government and Trump, is expected to issue a decision sometime next month.
The panel is expected soon to hear oral arguments on the administration’s request to review an earlier court ruling that found the executive order unconstitutional.
The Justice Department has said that it has the authority to appeal to the Supreme Courts.
Trump’s order, signed on Feb. 27, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days and bars immigration from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
But the U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the merits of the case until later this year.
The court’s liberal-leaning justices are expected to decide on the issue sometime next year, while the conservative-leaning conservative-appointed justices will decide on it sometime in 2019.
A hearing for the case was set for Tuesday, but Gorsuch did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
The government also has argued that the order is lawful because the president has broad powers to make the order.
Trump has said the order was necessary to combat terrorism and was necessary in response to the deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium, last summer.
The president has called the ban “the toughest travel ban in the history of our country.”
He said in a Jan. 31 statement that it “was passed with bipartisan support, with the support of Congress, and with the full cooperation of our allies and partners.”
The government said in its filing that the ban is “essentially a Muslim ban, as opposed to a ban on Muslims,” and the court has previously ruled that it violates the First Amendment and federal law.
The administration has argued the ban applies to people from the seven countries listed in the order, which includes Syria, Iraq, Iran and Somalia.
The countries are also designated as state sponsors of terrorism, which the administration said includes the Muslim Brotherhood.
The ruling has been opposed by civil liberties advocates and Republicans.
Trump, a Democrat, has said he intends to uphold the ruling.
“This is the most important issue of our time, and I am going to keep fighting to make sure that we keep this country safe,” Trump said on Jan. 29, according to excerpts of a speech he delivered at the National Press Club.
“You’re going to see the judges saying, ‘No, no, no.
That’s not what we wanted.
That was a bad idea.'”
In an interview with CNN last week, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said the ruling could be the final nail in the coffin for Trump’s efforts to roll back the Obama administration’s immigration policies.
“We’re going back to a world where the president of the United State can basically declare that anybody from a Muslim-dominated country that’s coming into the United Sates is a potential threat to our country, and the courts can overturn that and put the brakes on,” Booker said.
“And we’re going down that path with the Trump administration and the Democrats in Congress.”
The Trump administration has been the target of criticism from immigration advocates since the executive orders first were announced.
The order bans entry to the U .
S. by nationals of Iran, Iraq and Syria.
It also bans entry from six countries — Yemen, Libya and Somalia — that the Trump Administration said were designated as terrorist states by the State Department.
The State Department also lists North Korea, Somalia and Sudan as states that are designated as terror states.
The White House has argued in court filings that the executive actions were needed to prevent potential attacks on U.s. soil.
A U.N. panel said last month that Trump’s travel ban is needed to address “the ongoing threat posed by terrorism and the continued threat posed to our national security by the continued expansion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) in Syria and Iraq.”
The order also says that the United Nations must submit to the executive branch “any material it determines is relevant” to the decision on the legality of the ban.
The Supreme Court has declined to review the case, citing Trump’s powers as president.
But in a statement Monday, the justices said they are “reviewing” the case.