Judges who upheld a ban on Trump's executive order on immigration have been given increased security after receiving a series of threats against their safety.

The US Marshals Service and local police have increased patrols and the number of protective officers guarding the judges who ruled Trump's ban on immigration shouldn't be enforced.

Law enforcement have not released specifics about the threats, but they have been treated seriously and cautiously, CNN reports.

Scroll down for video

Threats against the judges who upheld a ban on President Trump's executive order, blocking immigration from seven Muslim countries, have resulted in an increase in their security

Shortly after the decision was announced, President Donald Trump announced the government would be repealing the decision in a tweet using all caps

Threats have increased as President Trump continues to verbally criticize judges on Twitter.

His public criticism has caused concern - with many insisting public officials should not target specific judges and instead base any criticism on the ruling as a whole.

Arthur D Roderick, a retired assistant director for investigations for the US Marshals, explained to CNN that federal judges face constant threat around the country, and that the US marshals investigate hundreds of threats on them every year.

Threats have increased as President Trump continues to verbally criticize judges on Twitter

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: (left to right) Judge Richard Clifton, Judge William Canby and Judge Michelle Friedland

President Donald Trump has used Twitter over the last few days to try and encourage the three judge panel to rule in his way. They didn't

He commented that the President should be familiar with threats against judges, as his sister is a federal judge.

'Anybody that has looked at what the US Marshals do has got to realize that an attack on any judge is an attack on the rule of law of the Untied States,' he said.

The President's first criticisms were based on Judge James L Robart, who halted the executive order. The President referred to him as a 'so-called' judge

However, Lenonard Leo, one of Trump's Supreme Court advisers, said it's a 'huge stretch' to equate the President's criticisms to any threats against judges.

He said to CNN: 'President Trump is not threatening a judge, and he's not encouraging any form of lawlessness.

'What he is dong is criticizing a judge for what he believes to be a failure to follow the law properly.'

The President's first criticisms were based on Judge James L Robart, who halted the executive order which stopped immigration from seven Muslim countries. The President referred to him as a 'so-called' judge, and tweeted later that his ruling 'would put our country in such peril'.

U.S. District Judge James Robart (pictured) ruled last Friday to suspend President Trump's travel ban

He also took time to criticize decisions of the judge in a speech Wednesday to the National Association of Sheriffs.

Thursday a federal appeals court ruled that the Travel ban will remain blocked. The decision by a three-judge panel was unanimous.

The panel consisted of Judge Richard Clifton a senior federal judge from Framingham, Massachusetts who works for the ninth circuit, Judge William Canby, sitting in Phoenix, Arizona, and Judge Michelle Friedland, from Berkeley who also works for the ninth circuit, California.

Just minutes after the ruling, Trump also ashed out on Twitter with an all caps message.

'SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!' Trump wrote.

An appeal to the US Supreme Court seems likely and would put the decision in the hands of a divided court that has a vacancy.

The president also spoke to reporters in the West Wing and called the judges' ruling a 'political decision'.

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their decision that they believed the government, which includes Trump's White House, was unlikely to win an appeal.

The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

'On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.'

The court rejected the administration's claim that it did not have the authority to review the president's executive order.

'There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,' the court said.

While they did not rule on the actual merits of the states' argument that the travel ban was intended to target Muslims, the judges rejected the government's claim that the court should not consider statements by Trump or his advisers about wishing to enact such a ban.

Considering those remarks, the judges said, falls within well-established legal precedent.