District Court Judge James Robart, seen here teaching in 2008, said Monday: "I thought the president said, We'll see you in court?" | AP Photo Seattle judge lets Trump travel ban suit roll on Meanwhile, another court issues preliminary injunction protecting Virginia residents who are citizens of seven countries targeted in executive order.

A judge in Seattle has turned down the federal government's request to put a lawsuit there on hold while an appeals court mulls further action regarding President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order.

At a hearing Monday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart rejected the Justice Department's call for a delay and invoked Trump's own Twitter comments seeming to seek quick action in the case.


"I thought the president said, We'll see you in court?" Robart said, according to a KOMO-TV reporter present at the hearing.

Robart declared that the case involved a "very sensitive time issue," so should not be slowed down, the Associated Press reported.

Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota had urged Robart to allow the suit to move forward, likely to a phase where discovery into the facts and circumstances behind the issuance of Trump's Jan. 27 order could be explored.

The George W. Bush appointee imposed a broad temporary restraining order against the directive on Feb. 3, effectively opening the borders and airports again to travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries affected by the ban.

In a ruling Thursday, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel unanimously declined to disturb that decision. However, another 9th Circuit judge called for a vote on whether to reconsider that ruling through a larger, 11-judge court.

In a separate development Monday evening, a federal judge in Alexandria imposed a preliminary injunction against the application of the executive order to Virginia residents and individuals affiliated with Virginia institutions, such as state-run universities.

The order from U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema will have no impact unless Robart's ruling is disturbed, but would kick in to protect those with Virginia connections if that broader order were lifted.

Brinkema said the state of Virginia, which filed the suit, was likely to prevail on its claim that Trump's order violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims.

"The 'Muslim ban' was a centerpiece of the president's campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered," Brinkema wrote in her opinion. She also noted that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani said publicly that Trump was looking for a legal way to implement an exclusion of Muslims.

"The 'specific sequence of events' leading to the adoption of the EO bolsters the Commonwealth's argument that the EO was not motivated by rational national security concerns," wrote the judge, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on either development.

Brinkema’s order only addresses the seven-country ban, while Robart’s took on a 120-day suspension of refugees and other changes made by Trump’s directive.