Mac McIntyre, student body vice president, shows solidarity with other students and faculty at a vigil held on Jan. 31, following the implementation of Trump’s travel ban.

In what feels more like a ping-pong match than reality, President Trump’s travel ban enacted Jan. 27 was suspended Friday by a judge in Seattle, then sustained by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday after the Department of Justice moved to reinstate it.

So the travel ban, for now, is lifted.

Trump’s travel ban blocked travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days. Not one of the seven were the country of origin for anyone who has carried out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001. The ban also blocked all refugees from entering the country for a period of about four months.

Trump’s ban affects more than 127 WVU students and their families. It restricts millions from these seven countries on the blanket assumption that these regions are more risky than others. That’s a dangerous assumption without much basis.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals apparently agrees.

In the move to reinstate the ban, Department of Justice lawyers claimed the suspension was, "vastly overboard" and "second-guesses" the President’s judgment on national security.

This language is borderline terrifying seeing as how second-guessing the president is not only entirely legal, but effectively the responsibility of the other branches of government via checks and balances. When one branch makes grievous error, the other branches are our only line of defense.

But even still, the travel ban issue is far from over. And this wasn’t the only lawsuit against the executive order.

The resolution to this specific suspension is expected in the next few days as cases are continually presented. But according to the ACLU, even more are on the way.

"We anticipate filing a broad challenge to the executive order in the coming days on behalf of a variety of plaintiffs," said ACLU senior attorney Lee Gelernt.

How these cases come together and shape up remains to be seen. But for now it is clear that the man who campaigned on the idea his Democratic opponent was not above the law, is, in-fact, not above the law.