The White House has hit back at an 'outrageous' court ruling which overturned Donald Trump's controversial immigration ban on Friday - and has vowed to file an 'emergency stay' to overturn it.

The temporary restraining order represents a major challenge to Trump's ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Judge James Robart made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, and Customs and Border Protection immediately alerted major US airlines that it will begin to reinstate visas.

The state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said: 'This decision shuts down the executive order right now. No one is above the law -- not even the President'.

With the Department of Justice reportedly seeking to file an emergency stay to reverse the decision as soon as Saturday, it opens a narrow window for previously barred travelers to enter the country.

However, it was unclear how the change in status was being received on the ground.

No U.S. airports reported they were releasing travelers still held in limbo on Friday night and there were no reports of any passengers exploiting the gap.

Going into the weekend, further chaos is undoubtedly expected as the two branches of government begin a tug of war battle over the law - with customs offices attempting to interpret directions at the center.

Executive orders are subject to legal review by a federal court when brought before a US judge.

Scroll down for video

After a federal judge put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old immigration ban on Friday, the White House hit back at the 'outrageous' ruling and said it 'intends to file an emergency stay'

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement late Friday night that the Department of Justice intends to halt the 'outrageous order' at the earliest possible time but not as soon as Friday night

HOW ONE FEDERAL JUDGE'S RULING CAN HALT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER How can a federal district judge seemingly over rule the president of the United States? Although it is not a new law, the temporary stay order issued has the power to implement new procedures, such as barring entry to certain countries through dictating how the Customs and Border Protection agency should operate. Executive orders are subject to legal review by a federal court when it is brought before a US judge. Judge Robart ruled that he found Trump's ban unconstitutional and put a temporary restraining order on the executive order, meaning government agencies had to comply with the ruling. Robart's move is not unprecedented. In the past nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders have been imposed by district courts and the federal government must obey, even when other district courts have ruled otherwise. The Washington state judge used a case from Obama's presidency as precedent for his ruling. A Texas federal district court blocked Obama’s plan to shield some undocumented immigrants from deportation Advertisement

The first statement from Spicer used the word 'outrageous' to describe Judge Robart's ruling (pictured)

However, a quick 12 minutes later, the White House issued another release with the same wording but removed 'outrageous' from the statement (pictured)

It took Trump's administration three hours to grasp how to address the Seattle judge's order

Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement that the Department of Justice intends to halt the 'outrageous order' at the earliest possible time but not as soon as Friday night.

Immediately after releasing the first statement the White House issued another release with the same wording but removed 'outrageous', reported CNN.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR TRAVELERS People previously blocked from entering the United States by the travel ban can now enter the country. Airlines were told by Customs and Border Protection the agency was reinstating visas on Friday night. However, the Department of Justice could block travelers again if it were to win an emergency stay. Trump's administration vowed it would halt the 'outrageous' order at the earliest possible time. The emergency stay will not be filed as soon as Friday night, which could allow for a narrow time frame for previously barred travelers to enter the US. Advertisement

The State Department is working with the Department of Homeland Security to determine how it affects its operations, a State Department official said.

Until the Department of Justice wins its emergency stay, previously denied travelers could have a small window of opportunity to enter the country.

Trump has not made a personal statement about the swift undoing of his order. He is currently at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and was expected to stay there for the weekend and host a Super Bowl party.

Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, made his decision after Washington state and Minnesota urged a nationwide hold on the executive order that has launched legal battles across the country.

He repeatedly questioned the federal government's lawyer, Michelle Bennett, about the rationale behind the order.

Robart asked if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties listed in Trump's order since 9/11. Bennett said she didn't know.

'The answer is none,' Robart said. 'You're here arguing we have to protect from these individuals from these countries, and there's no support for that.'

The judge recently became emotional in a hearing over Seattle police reform and closed with a declaration of 'black lives matter', reported The Seattle Times.

The judge, James Robart (pictured) made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, and the Customs and Border Protection has already alerted major US airlines that it will begin to reinstate visas. He became emotional earlier this year and declared 'black lives matter' in court

Donald Trump's White House Press Secretary said the Department of Justice intends to halt the 'outrageous order' at the earliest possible time. But it is reported that won't be as soon as Friday night. Trump has not made a personal statement about the swift undoing of his order and is currently at his estate in Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where he is expected to host a Super Bowl party

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson talks to reporters following the hearing in federal court in Seattle. He said: 'No one is above the law — not even the President'

Pictured: The seven countries that were banned in Trump's executive order. A judge's ruling put a temporary hold on the ban on Friday, meaning these travelers can now enter the country again

Trump's order last week sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer.

AMAZON CEO BACKS LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said his company supported Washington's lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees. Pictured: Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos Bezos wrote in an internal email to Amazon employees Monday that company lawyers have prepared a 'declaration of support' for the suit. He continued that employees affected by the order have 'the full extent of Amazon’s resources behind' them. Amazon has a market cap of $292billion. He announced that the company would put support behind Washington's lawsuit against the ban, which saw success on Friday. Amazon's headquarters are located in Seattle, Washington. Following Trump winning the presidency, Forbes reported that Amazon's stock plummeted for a week straight. The giant online retailer was one of several tech companies to stand against Trump. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Netflix voiced disapproval of the action. Advertisement

Judge Robart's decision was an echo of many citizen's beliefs that America has and will always welcome immigrants, including Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos who was one of the biggest advocates for lifting the ban.

Bezos supported the lawsuit against the government that was filed in Washington, the same state as Amazon's headquarters.

Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and immigrant entry.

Washington became the first state to sue, with Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson saying the order was causing significant harm to residents and effectively mandates discrimination. Minnesota joined the suit this week.

Ferguson was elected to his position in November 2012 and took office in 2013. He won his re-election the following term.

He has plans to introduce legislation banning semi-automatic assault-style weapons later this year, the Seattle Times reports.

After the ruling, Ferguson said people from the affected countries can now apply for entry to the U.S.

Washington and Minnesota won a temporary restraining order while the court considers the lawsuit, which says key sections of Trump's order are illegal and unconstitutional.

In court, Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell said the focus of the state's legal challenge was the way the president's order targeted Islam.

Purcell said: 'We only challenged the parts that are actually affecting people immediately, which are the parts about refugees and the parts about targeting these seven countries.

People protest in a demonstration in Cleveland. The demonstration was organized in protest of President Donald Trump's immigration order

Trump's order last week sparked protests nationwide and confusion at airports as some travelers were detained. The White House has argued that it will make the country safer

Judge Robart (left), who was appointed by George W. Bush, had recently became emotional in a hearing over Seattle police reform and closed with a declaration of 'black lives matter'. Ferguson (right) was elected to his position in 2012 and has plans to introduce legislation banning semi-automatic assault-style weapons later this year

'The parts that have getting so much attention and have been causing such immediate harm to people, stranding them oversees and such, are enjoined right away.'

THE WHITE HOUSE'S FULL STATEMENT 'At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate. 'The president’s order is intended to protect the homeland and he has the constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the American people. As the law states, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."' Advertisement

He told the judge that Trump has called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and the travel ban was an effort to make good on that campaign promise.

'Do you see a distinction between campaign statements and the executive order,' Robart asked. 'I think it's a bit of a reach to say the president is anti-Muslim based on what he said in New Hampshire in June.'

Purcell said there was an 'overwhelming amount of evidence' to show that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, which is unconstitutional.

When the Robart questioned the federal government's lawyer Bennett on the matter, she argued that the states can't sue on behalf of citizens and the states have failed to show the order is causing irreparable harm.

Robart disagreed.

Up to 60,000 foreigners from the seven majority-Muslim countries had their visas canceled because of the executive order, the State Department said Friday.

That figure contradicts a statement from a Justice Department lawyer on the same day during a court hearing in Virginia about the ban. The lawyer in that case said about 100,000 visas had been revoked.

The State Department clarified that the higher figure includes diplomatic and other visas that were actually exempted from the travel ban, as well as expired visas.

Federal attorneys had argued that Congress gave the president authority to make decisions on national security and admitting immigrants.

The lawsuit says Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from coming to the U.S. and kept up that rhetoric while defending the travel ban.

Lawyers pointed to dozens of exhibits of speeches and statements Trump has made.

'The executive order effectively mandates that the states engage in discrimination based on national origin and/or religion, thereby rescinding the states' historic protection of civil rights and religious freedom,' the complaint said, calling it a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Muslim men pray at a prayer and demonstration at JFK airport to protest President Donald Trump's Executive Order banning immigrants and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries on February 3, 2017 in New York City

Muslim men pray at a prayer and demonstration at JFK airport to protest President Donald Trump's Executive Order

The lawsuit ultimately seeks to permanently block parts of the executive order that suspend immigration from the seven Muslim-majority countries, put the U.S. refugee admissions program on hold and halt entry of Syrian refugees.

Ferguson said the order is causing significant harm to Washington residents, businesses and its education system.

It will reduce tax revenue and impose significant costs on state agencies, as well as make it impossible for some state employees and students to travel, he said.

Washington-based businesses Amazon, Expedia and Microsoft support the state's efforts to stop the order. They say it's hurting their operations, too.