Trump vows to move 'very rapidly' on security after travel-ban ruling

President Trump, faced now with an extended court challenge to his temporary ban on travelers from terror hot beds, said Friday there will be more action to bolster the nation's security next week.

At a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump responded to questions about the 9th Circuit Court's decision to uphold a lower court judge's suspension of Trump's ban.

The appeals court, without even mentioning the U.S. law that gives presidents authority to limit migrants, upheld the lower court's suspension of Trump's order.

Trump signaled his willingness to continue the fight immediately after the decision was announced late Thursday, tweeting, "See you in court!" The London Daily Mail reported the White House was laying out possible options.

TRENDING: Report: Capitol cop who shot Babbitt is in hiding

One option is to redraft the travel ban to make it "more resistant to legal challenge" and issue a new requirement.

What do YOU think? What should Trump do about the travel ban now? Sound off in today's WND poll!

Others are to request a full-court hearing of the 9th Circuit, the most-overturned appeals court in the nation, appeal to the ideologically divided U.S. Supreme Court or try the case in district court, which seems unlikely since the 120 day order would expire before a ruling could be obtained.

On Friday at the White House, Trump said, responding to a question about a potential new travel ban: "We are going to keep our country safe. We are going to do whatever is necessary to keep our country safe."

He declined to outline details but said safety is a primary goal, as it's one of the reasons he was elected president. He said voters believed he would provide more security than another candidate.

"We'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country," he said.

Trump said the time frame for that is "next week."

But he also said he will continue the court battle.

"I feel totally confident that we will have tremendous security for the people of the United States," he said, referencing "extreme vetting."

He said in office, he's learned of the "tremendous threats" facing the U.S.

"We will not allow that to happen. We'll be going forward. We'll be doing things to continue to make our country safe. It will happen rapidly. And we will not allow people into our country who are looking to do harm."

Some of the most highly respected legal voices in America blasted the 9th Circuit's opinion.

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said the ruling "looks like it's based more on policy that on constitutionality."

Related column: "Travel ban: What Trump did wrong, and how he can fix it," by Craige McMillan

The 9th Circuit said the suspension of the travel ban is justified.

"We hold that the government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay," the court said.

The panel consisted of William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.

The decision was limited to whether or not the temporary suspension should remain in place.

Ann Coulter's back, and she's never been better than in "Adios, America!: The Left's Plan to Turn our Country into a Third World Hellhole."

At the lower court, the judge mistakenly claimed that no one from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya or Somalia had been arrested in the United States since 9/11.

However, travelers and immigrants from the seven countries have indeed been involved in the murders of Americans and other heinous crimes.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., commented: "The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Unlike the district court order, there is at least a court opinion which can be evaluated.

"Of particular interest is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' suggestion that even those unlawfully present in the country have certain due process rights with respect to immigration," the congressman said.

"The court cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) for the proposition that even aliens who have committed and been convicted of certain crimes while in the U.S. unlawfully may have due process rights with respect to travel to or from the United States. In addition, the court ventures curiously into its own role in reviewing a president's national security conclusions.

Gowdy said "legal permanent residents, non-citizens with current valid visas, non-citizens with expired visas (which were once valid), aliens with no legal standing, aliens who have committed a crime but have not yet been deported and aliens who are not even present in the United States but seek to come are just a few of the categories the Supreme Court will need to determine what process is due, if any."

"It seems clear to most of us – not on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – there is no right to come to this country for non-citizens of the United States," Gowdy said. "It also seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the commander in chief."

What do YOU think? What should Trump do about the travel ban now? Sound off in today's WND poll!