Story highlights Attorney General Jeff Sessions vows to take the case to the Supreme Court

But it's unlikely the justices will want to hear it, says Page Pate

Page Pate, a CNN legal analyst, is a criminal defense and constitutional lawyer based in Atlanta. He is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Georgia, a founding member of the Georgia Innocence Project, a former board member of the Federal Defender Program in Atlanta, and the former chairman of the criminal law section of the Atlanta Bar Association. Follow him on Twitter @pagepate. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

(CNN) In announcing the first travel ban in January, President Donald Trump said, "This is the 'Protection of the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.' We all know what that means."

As it turns out, we do. It means that you are trying to implement a ban on Muslims entering the country under the guise of protecting national security. And, as the 4th Circuit held Thursday , that's unconstitutional.

The language of the opinion is rich and direct. The chief judge notes that the travel ban offers "vague words of national security" but, in reality and effect, "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination." Those are powerful words, made even more powerful by the assent of the six other judges who signed their names to this opinion. It's a stinging slap in the face to Trump and anyone else who dares to defend the ban as constitutional.

Page Pate

I have to admit that I was initially one of those defenders. Not because I agree with the policy; I don't. And not because I thought the first travel ban was OK; I didn't. But I thought that the new and improved travel ban was probably enough to survive a constitutional challenge. I thought they had cleaned it up enough to get by the courts because the order itself contained nothing to support the argument that the ban was focused on religious discrimination.

The first ban contained language that gave preference to Christians -- religious minorities -- in mostly Muslim countries, and was silent about the rights of people who already held visas or had been approved to enter the United States. I did not expect that the judges would be willing to look behind the words written in the order to discern true intent.

Read More