Washington, Jun 13 (IANS): The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against reinstating President Donald Trump's revised executive order limiting travel from six-Muslim majority countries, the media reported.

The ruling on Monday from the three-judge -- Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez -- panel is yet another stinging loss from a court that similarly refused to reinstate Trump's original executive order on travel in February, reports CNN.

"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the three judges, all appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in the ruling.

"Immigration, even for the President, is not a one-person show."

The judges cited Trump's latest tweets in the travel ban saga.

"Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the 'countries' that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President's 'travel ban'," the judge wrote.

They also cited White House press secretary Sean Spicer's confirmation that Trump's tweets are "considered official statements by the President of the United States".

On June 6, Trump tweeted: "That's right, we need a travel ban for certain dangerous countries, not some politically correct term that won't help us protect our people!", reports CNN.

The judges largely affirmed US District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision from March which found the core provisions of the revised executive order likely violated the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavour Muslims, but on slightly different grounds.

Spicer on Monday said the administration is reviewing the decision and said it believes the travel ban is "lawful" and will be ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

Unlike the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which shot down the President's revised travel ban on constitutional grounds last month, the Ninth Circuit was persuaded by statutory claims under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

"In conclusion, the Order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality," wrote the panel.