WASHINGTON -- The fierce battle over U.S. President Donald Trump's travel and refugee ban edged up the judicial escalator Monday, headed for a possible final face-off at the Supreme Court. Travelers, temporarily unbound, tearfully reunited with loved ones at U.S. airports.

The Justice Department filed a new defence of Trump's ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations as a federal appeals court weighs whether to restore the administration's executive order. The lawyers said the travel ban was a "lawful exercise" of the president's authority to protect national security and said a judge's order that put the policy on hold should be overruled.

The filing with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest salvo in a high-stakes legal fight surrounding Trump's order, which was halted Friday by a federal judge in Washington state.

The judges are to hear arguments Tuesday.

The appeals court earlier refused to immediately reinstate the ban, and lawyers for Washington and Minnesota -- two states challenging it -- argued anew on Monday that any resumption would "unleash chaos again," separating families and stranding university students.

The Justice Department responded that the president has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" to the U.S. in the name of national security. It said the travel ban, which temporarily suspends the country's refugee program and immigration from seven countries with terrorism concerns, was intended "to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks."

The challengers of the ban, the Justice Department wrote, were asking "courts to take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the president himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."

Whatever the appeals court decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

It could prove difficult, though, to find the necessary five votes at the high court to undo a lower court order; the Supreme Court has been at less than full strength since Justice Antonin Scalia's death a year ago. The last immigration case that reached the justices ended in a 4-4 tie.

The president's executive order has faced legal uncertainty ever since Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robart, which challenged both Trump's authority and his ability to fulfil a campaign promise.

The State Department quickly said people from the seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- could travel to the U.S. if they had valid visas. The Homeland Security Department said it was no longer directing airlines to prevent affected visa holders from boarding U.S.-bound planes.

On Monday in Colorado, a graduate student who had travelled to Libya with her 1-year-old son to visit her sick mother and attend her father's funeral was back in Fort Collins after having been stopped in Jordan on her return trip. She was welcomed with flowers and balloons by her husband and other children.

Two Yemeni brothers whose family has sued over the travel ban, and who'd been turned away in the chaotic opening days of the order, arrived at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they were greeted by their father.

"America is for everybody," Aqel Aziz said after greeting his sons.

Syrian immigrant Mathyo Asali said he thought his life was "ruined" when he landed at Philadelphia International Airport on Jan. 28 only to be denied entry to the United States. Asali, who returned to Damascus, said he figured he'd be inducted into the Syrian military. He was back on U.S. soil Monday.

"It's really nice to know that there's a lot of people supporting us," Asali told Gov. Tom Wolf, who greeted the family at a relative's house in Allentown.

The legal fight involves two divergent views of the role of the executive branch and the court system.

The government has asserted that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, while Robart has said a judge's job is to ensure that an action taken by the government "comports with our country's laws."

His Friday ruling triggered a Twitter rant by Trump, who dismissed Robart as a "so-called judge." On Sunday, Trump tweeted, "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

States challenging the ban have been joined by technology companies, who have said it makes it more difficult to recruit employees. National security officials under President Barack Obama have also come out against it. A declaration filed by John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former secretaries of state, and others said the ban would disrupt lives and cripple U.S. counterterrorism partnerships without making the nation safer.

"It will aid ISIL's propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam," they wrote.

How and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before a higher court takes up the issue. Or the administration could change it in any number of ways that would keep the issue alive.

The bench also could be full, with a new ninth justice on board, by the time the court is ready to hear arguments. If Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed this spring as Senate Republicans hope, chances of a tie vote would disappear.

Associated Press writers Eugene Johnson and Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Matthew Barakat in Chantilly, Virginia, Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Colleen Slevin in Denver and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.</s>Three federal judges Tuesday afternoon will hear oral arguments in the challenge to President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The hour-long hearing, conducted by telephone among three West coast judges, will determine the immediate fate of the nationwide temporary restraining order against Trump's travel ban.

Trump has only been in office for 17 days, but his Justice Department is already embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle that could affect hundreds of thousands of people and the direction of his presidency.

Attorneys general for Washington and Minnesota, which challenged the executive order, say that the temporary restraining order should remain in place because the President had "unleashed chaos" by signing the order.

Trump, who rode a wave of populist anger into the White House, now has to wait for the Ninth Circuit panel. The San Francisco-based court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the nation to the point where some Republican lawmakers have even pushed to split it up in an effort to limit its impact. And no matter what its ruling here, the next stop will likely be the US Supreme Court.

It's a stunning escalation of an issue that has caused massive confusion in airports across the country, left those with valid visas and refugees seeking asylum in legal limbo and prompted the President himself -- in the first major legal challenge of his presidency -- to launch an attack on one judge who ruled against him.

The issue in front of the court at the moment is not whether or not Trump's travel ban is constitutional, but whether it will remain suspended for now.

It all centers on his executive order issued January 27 with little explanation or advance warning. The order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries -- Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen -- from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

Friday, federal Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington suspended key parts of the executive order nationwide. Trump fired off two tweets in response. In one he referred to Robart as a "so called" judge. In another, he said, "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

The two states' attorneys general put forward several legal arguments, including that it violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution because it shows government preference for one religion over another, and Equal Protection Clause -- part of the 14th Amendment -- because it discriminates based on religion and national origin.

The government counters that Robart's injunction should be lifted for now and the executive order should be cleared to go back into effect while the legal process continues.

Hawaii also sought to get in on the action early Monday morning -- filing an emergency motion to intervene in the appeal.

The state's attorney general filed a separate lawsuit against Trump over the travel ban in federal district court in Hawaii last week, and it now argues that Hawaii must be allowed in the case before the Ninth Circuit to protect its interests as well.

Also on Monday morning several former senior US officials, including former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, signed on to a declaration in support of a brief filed by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota.

"We view the (Executive) Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer," officials wrote.

"It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interest, endangering US troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships."

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban. The state attorneys general from these states argue they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

The states include New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.

The appellate court has been burning the midnight oil, requesting further briefing early Sunday on the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay from the two states -- Washington and Minnesota -- as well as from the government.

The states ask that the court to leave the temporary restraining order in place, arguing that the government has failed to show that it would be "irreparably harmed" by a suspension of the executive order.

"But that would mean that until the (Executive) Order was issued, Defendants were suffering some unspecified, ongoing irreparable harm. That makes no sense. ... Preserving the status quo against sudden disruption is often in the interest of all parties," the states said in a court filing Monday morning.

"The Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the President's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees," the Justice Department wrote in a brief Monday evening.

The government struck back Sunday, arguing that Robart's order should be lifted and the executive order go back into effect. "Judicial second-guessing of the President's determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches' plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration," wrote Noel Francisco, the acting Solicitor General.

The three-judge panel includes Judge William C. Canby Jr, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, and Judge Richard R. Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. It is likely that they will make their decisions based on the legal briefs they receive and not ask for a hearing.

The 9th Circuit represents the most geographically diverse district in the country with nearly four dozen judges and covers most of the western United States, Hawaii and Alaska.

The loser at the 9th Circuit will most likely go to the Supreme Court. Because the justices are understaffed with only eight judges, there is a chance that they could split on the ruling 4-4.

If that were to occur, they'd be left with simply upholding whatever order the 9th Circuit issued, underscoring the importance of that court's ruling.</s>WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Sunday denied the Justice Department's request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump's ban on accepting certain travelers and all refugees.

The Trump administration had appealed a temporary order restraining the ban nationwide, saying a federal judge in Seattle overreached by "second-guessing" the president on a matter of national security.

The appeals court's denial of an immediate stay means the legal fight over the ban will continue for days at least. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco asked challengers of the ban to respond by early Monday, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by the evening.

Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the administration, told the appeals court that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States — an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

"The power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute, delegated by Congress to the executive branch of government and largely immune from judicial control," according to government's filing.

The government has suspended the ban's enforcement in compliance with order of the order of U.S. District Judge James Robart. His ruling was an extraordinary setback for the new president, who only a week ago acted to suspend America's refugee program and halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries that the government said raise terrorism concerns.

Trump mocked Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, calling him a "so-called judge" whose "ridiculous" ruling "will be overturned."

"Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision," he tweeted.

Trump's direct attack recalled his diatribes during the campaign against the federal judge of Mexican heritage who oversaw lawsuits alleging fraud by Trump University, and may prompt some tough questions as these challenges rise through the courts.

But the government's brief repeatedly asserted that presidential authority cannot be questioned by judges once the nation's security is invoked.

Congress "vests complete discretion in the President" to impose conditions on alien entry, so Trump isn't legally required to justify such decisions, it said. His executive order said the ban was necessary for "protecting against terrorism," and that "is sufficient to end the matter."

The Justice Department asked that Robart's order be put on hold pending resolution of the appeal, so that the ban can "ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism."

The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompted protests across the United States and led to multiple court challenges. Demonstrations took place outside the White House, in New York and near his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where Trump attended an American Red Cross fundraising gala.

"We'll win," Trump told reporters Saturday night. "For the safety of the country, we'll win."

The State Department said on Friday that as many as 60,000 foreigners from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen had their visas canceled. After Robart's decision, the department reversed course and said they could travel to the U.S. if they had a valid visa.

The department also advised refugee aid agencies that refugees set to travel before Trump signed his order will now be allowed in. A State Department official said in an email obtained by The Associated Press that the government was "focusing on booking refugee travel" through Feb. 17 and working to have arrivals resume as soon as Monday.

The Homeland Security Department no longer was directing airlines to prevent visa-holders affected by Trump's order from boarding U.S.-bound planes. The agency said it had "suspended any and all actions" related to putting in place Trump's order.

Hearings have also been held in court challenges nationwide. Washington state and Minnesota argued that the temporary ban and the global suspension of the U.S. refugee program harmed residents and effectively mandated discrimination.

In his written order Friday, Robart said it's not the court's job to "create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches," but rather, to make sure that an action taken by the government "comports with our country's laws."

Robart's order also imposes harm on U.S. citizens "by thwarting the legal effect of the public's chosen representative," it says.

Associated Press writers Michael Warren in Atlanta, Alicia A. Caldwell, Mark Sherman, Matthew Lee and Jessica Gresko in Washington, Martha Bellisle in Seattle, William Mathis and Julie Walker in New York, contributed to this report.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court denied early Sunday the Justice Department’s request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump’s ban on accepting certain travelers and all refugees.

The Trump administration appealed a temporary order restraining the ban nationwide, saying late Saturday night that the federal judge in Seattle overreached by “second-guessing” the president on a matter of national security.

The higher court’s denial of an immediate stay means people from seven countries affected by Trump’s order will be allowed, for now, to enter the country while the legal battles continue.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco asked challengers of the ban respond to the appeal, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by Monday afternoon.

Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco forcefully argued Saturday night that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States — an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

“The power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute, delegated by Congress to the executive branch of government and largely immune from judicial control,” the brief says.

Earlier Saturday, the government officially suspended the ban’s enforcement in compliance with order of the order of U.S. District Judge James Robart. It marks an extraordinary setback for the new president, who only a week ago acted to suspend America’s refugee program and halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries the government said raise terrorism concerns.

Trump, meanwhile, mocked Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, calling him a “so-called judge” whose “ridiculous” ruling “will be overturned.”

“Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision,” he tweeted.

Trump’s direct attack recalled his diatribes during the campaign against the federal judge of Mexican heritage who oversaw lawsuits alleging fraud by Trump University, and may prompt some tough questions as these challenges rise through the courts.

But the government’s brief repeatedly asserts that presidential authority cannot be questioned by judges once the nation’s security is invoked.

Congress “vests complete discretion in the President” to impose conditions on alien entry, so Trump isn’t legally required to justify such decisions, it says. His executive order said the ban is necessary for “protecting against terrorism,” and that “is sufficient to end the matter.”

The Justice Department asked that the federal judge’s order be stayed pending resolution of the appeal, so that the ban can “ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompted protests across the United States and led to multiple court challenges. Demonstrations took place outside the White House, in New York and near his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where Trump was attending the annual American Red Cross fundraising gala.

“We’ll win,” Trump told reporters Saturday night. “For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

The State Department, after initially saying that as many as 60,000 foreigners from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen had their visas canceled, reversed course on Saturday and said they could travel to the U.S. if they had a valid visa.

The department on Saturday advised refugee aid agencies that refugees set to travel before Trump signed his order will now be allowed in. A State Department official said in an email obtained by The Associated Press that the government was “focusing on booking refugee travel” through Feb. 17 and working to have arrivals resume as soon as Monday.

The Homeland Security Department no longer was directing airlines to prevent visa-holders affected by Trump’s order from boarding U.S.-bound planes. The agency said it had “suspended any and all actions” related to putting in place Trump’s order.

Hearings have also been held in court challenges nationwide. Washington state and Minnesota argued that the temporary ban and the global suspension of the U.S. refugee program harmed residents and effectively mandated discrimination.

In his written order Friday, Robart said it’s not the court’s job to “create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches,” but rather, to make sure that an action taken by the government “comports with our country’s laws.”

The Justice Department countered that “judicial second-guessing of the President’s national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and the nation at large.”

Robart’s order also imposes harm on U.S. citizens “by thwarting the legal effect of the public’s chosen representative,” it says.

Associated Press writers Michael Warren in Atlanta, Alicia A. Caldwell, Mark Sherman, Matthew Lee and Jessica Gresko in Washington, Martha Bellisle in Seattle, William Mathis and Julie Walker in New York, contributed to this report.</s>A federal appeals court early Sunday morning denied the US government’s emergency request to resume President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for both sides to file legal briefs before the court makes its final decision after a federal judge halted the program on Friday.

What this means is that the ruling by US District Court Judge James Robart, who suspended the ban, will remain in place — for now.

The US Justice Department filed an appeal just after midnight Sunday, asking to pause Robart’s sweeping decision that temporarily halted enforcement of several key provisions of Trump’s executive order.

The order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

The Justice Department’s strongly worded court filing lodged a multi-pronged attack on Robart’s decision, emphasizing that halting enforcement of the travel ban “harms the public” and “second-guesses the President’s national security judgment” in the immigration context.

“(Robart’s ruling) contravenes the considered judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.

“Courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the President’s prospective judgment about future risks. Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process,” the filing said.

Justice Department lawyers further argued that the parties who filed the lawsuit — the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota — lack the ability to sue in federal court because their alleged harms are too “speculative.”

Since the federal appeals court rejected a request to immediately reinstate the travel ban, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota have until 2:59 a.m. Monday to file legal papers, and the Justice Department lawyers have until 6 p.m. Monday evening to reply. Then a three-judge panel will decide whether to schedule a hearing or issue a ruling.

Robart, a Bush appointee sitting in the Western District of Washington, ruled Friday that the states that filed the lawsuit “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the executive order.”

Robart explained that Trump’s executive order adversely affects “residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.”

When Trump was asked at a gala in Florida on Saturday whether he was confident his administration would prevail in the appeal, he replied, “We’ll win. For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security announced it had suspended “any and all” actions to implement the immigration order and would resume standard inspections of travelers, as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban.

After the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Sunday, a US Embassy official in Baghdad said that holders of valid US visas, including Iraqi Special Immigrant Visas, would be allowed to travel to the United States.

“The US Government has determined that it is in the national interest to allow Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) holders to continue to travel to the United States,” the embassy official said, adding that the embassy had been in contact with the SIV applicants.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) – The Justice Department is asking a federal appeals court to set aside a judge’s order that temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s travel ban.

The federal government’s request for an emergency stay was filed Saturday night with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The filing asks the court to lift an order from a day earlier from a judge in Washington state.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge James Robart temporarily halted a Trump administration executive order that suspended America’s refugee program and halted immigration to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The administration on Saturday moved to suspend enforcement of the travel ban as the Justice Department readied its legal challenge.

President Donald Trump has lashed out at Robart on Twitter, calling him a “so-called judge.”

Never miss another Facebook post from WISH-TV</s>The Justice Department on Saturday appealed a decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that stopped enforcement of the executive order banning travel to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending refugee entry to the US.</s>President Donald Trump has only been in office for 17 days, but his Justice Department is already embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle over his executive order on immigration that could have monumental implications.

It’s a stunning escalation of an issue that has caused chaos in airports across the country, left those with valid visas and refugees seeking asylum in legal limbo and prompted the President himself — in the first major legal challenge of his presidency — to launch an attack on one judge who ruled against him.

Trump, who rode a wave of populist anger into the White House, now will answer to the powerful 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The San Francisco-based court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the nation to the point where some Republican lawmakers have even pushed to split it up in an effort to limit its impact. And no matter what its ruling here, the next stop will likely be the US Supreme Court.

The issue in front of the court at the moment is not whether Trump’s travel ban is constitutional, but whether it will remain suspended for now.

Friday, federal judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington suspended key parts of the executive order nationwide. Trump fired off two tweets in response. In one he referred to Robart as a “so called” judge. In another, he said, “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

It all centers on his executive order issued on January 27 with little explanation or advance warning. The order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.

The Temporary Restraining Order issued by Robart on Friday is now front and center before a three judge panel on the 9th Circuit. The appellate court is burning the midnight oil, requesting briefs from the two states –Washington and Minnesota — late Sunday night. The government has until 6 p.m. Monday evening to submit its briefs.

The government counters that Robart’s injunction should be lifted for now and the executive order should be cleared to go back into effect while the legal process continues.

The states will ask the court to leave the temporary restraining order in place.

In briefs so far, the attorneys general for Washington and Minnesota say that the TRO should remain in place because they are likely to succeed in their constitutional challenge. They put forward several legal arguments, including that it violates the Establishment Clause because it shows government preference for one religion over another, and Equal Protection because it discriminates based on religion and national origin.

The government strikes back, arguing that Robart’s order should be lifted and the executive order go back into effect. “Judicial second-guessing of the President’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration,” wrote Noel Francisco, the acting Solicitor General.

The judges who will hear the case—most likely conferring by telephone — is expected to issue a ruling as early as Tuesday. The three judge panel includes Judge William C. Canby Jr, an appointee of President Jimmy Cater, Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, and Judge Richard R. Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. It is likely that they will make their decisions based on the legal briefs they receive and not ask for a hearing.

The 9th Circuit is considered one of the most liberal courts in the nation. It’s by far the most geographically diverse with nearly four dozen judges and covers most of the Western United States, Hawaii and Alaska.

The loser at the 9th Circuit will most likely go to the Supreme Court. Because the justices are understaffed with only eight judges, there is a chance that they could split on the ruling 4-4.

If that were to occur, they’d be left with simply upholding whatever order the 9th Circuit issued, underscoring the importance of that court’s ruling.</s>WASHINGTON, DC – The Justice Department on Saturday moved to appeal a decision that temporarily halted enforcement of President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The appeal concerns a late Friday decision by a US district court that halted the enforcement of Trump’s executive order. Trump’s policy banned travel to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, suspended all refugee entry to the US for 120 days and indefinitely suspended entry for Syrian refugees.

A notice of appeal was sent Saturday night to the US district court, where Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, presides in Seattle.

The Justice Department is expected to file its brief laying out its legal argument later Saturday night to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the appeal.

Hours after Robart’s ruling, the Department of Homeland Security announced it had suspended all actions to implement the immigration order and would resume standard inspections of travelers as it did prior to the signing of the travel ban. But it urged the Justice Department to challenge the ruling “at the earliest possible time.”

The three judges who will likely hear the appeal — assuming no one has to step aside over any conflicts — are: Judge William Canby, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter; Richard Clifton, who was appointed by Bush; and Michelle Friedland, a President Barack Obama appointee.

Robart, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota who sought to stop the order, said the states “have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the executive order. ”

He said the order adversely affects residents in areas of education, employment, education and freedom to travel.</s>U.S. District Judge James Robart of Seattle on Friday issued a nationwide restraining order blocking the travel ban put in place by President Trump last week, KOMO news reported.

Trump's ban, created through an executive order, sought to block people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

In issuing his decision, Robart was siding with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who filed a suit to block key provisions of the president's executive order, which also bars Syrian refugees from entering the country.

Word of the decision came shortly after revelations about an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton out of Boston, who refused to extend a temporary order that allowed some people affected by Trump's ban to enter the country.

Gorton ruled that the American Civil Liberties Union failed to demonstrate a need for an ongoing restraining order, according to the Globe.

The ACLU and other advocacy groups were aiming to extend the restraining order. Trump's stay affected travelers coming in from seven majority-Muslim countries and spurred protests at airports across the country.
Trump's travel ban remains suspended as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denies the Justice Department's request to stay the ruling which blocks major portions of the executive order.