One potential hurdle for the Trump administration: Temporary restraining orders are not ordinarily appealable. | AP Photo Appeals court rebuffs request to quickly restore travel ban The Justice Department filed an emergency motion to reverse a judge's order lifting Trump's immigration ban.

The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to lift a ruling by a Seattle judge halting President Donald Trump's travel ban, but the court turned down the administration's request for immediate permission to reinstate the controversial limits on travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.

Federal government lawyers filed an emergency stay motion with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Saturday, California time, asking a three-judge panel of that court to stay the nationwide temporary restraining order issued Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart.


"The injunction immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment," the motion signed by acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco and acting Civil Division chief Chad Readler argues. "As the President acted well within both statutory and constitutional authorization, the relief irreparably harms our system of government by contravening the Constitution’s separation of powers."

Justice Department attorneys asked the 9th Circuit to put Robart's order on hold temporarily while the appeals court considers an open-ended stay of the ruling, but in an order early Sunday morning, the appeals court rejected that request. That decision and a briefing schedule that the 9th Circuit set in the case seem likely to keep Trump's travel ban order in place at least through Monday afternoon.

The most minute details of scheduling of the case are being closely watched by immigration advocates, employers and family members of individuals directly impacted by Trump's action last week restricting travel to the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria; suspending virtually all refugee admissions for 120 days; and indefinitely halting the arrival of refugees fleeing the fighting in Syria.

Every day the travel ban remains lifted allows more of those covered by the order to enter the country, nothwithstanding Trump's warnings that those immigrants and travelers — all previously approved by the U.S. government — pose a grave risk to the U.S.

Trump wants to subject those covered by the order to a new round of what he calls "extreme vetting."

At a hearing Friday, Robart — a George W. Bush appointee — suggested that there was no basis to consider immigrants from those seven countries more dangerous than others.

Justice Department lawyers argued in the new filing that Robart overstepped his bounds by substituting his judgment for Trump’s about the nature of the security threat posed by travelers from the seven affected countries.

“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,” the federal motion argues.

A 9th Circuit spokesman said Saturday that the stay motion would be decided by Judges William Canby Jr. (a Jimmy Carter appointee), Michelle Friedland (a Barack Obama appointee) and Richard Clifton (a George W. Bush appointee).

However, only Canby and Friedland were listed as joining in the initial order denying a so-called administrative stay of Robart's ruling while the appeals court mulls the issue. It was not immediately clear why Clifton was not mentioned in the order, but 9th Circuit procedures allow some motions to be decided by the first two judges who receive the request, if they agree. A 9th Circuit spokesman did not immediately respond to a request early Sunday for comment on Clifton's absence from the order.

Canby and Friedland ordered the plaintiffs in the case — the states of Washington and Minnesota — to file their brief opposing the stay by just before midnight Sunday, California time, with the federal government's reply due by 3 p.m. Monday.

Visa holders from the seven affected countries began arriving Saturday after Customs and Border Protection officials said they would allow such travelers to board flights as a result of Robart's order, but that would change again if a stay is eventually granted by the appeals court.

The federal government's motion rejects the states' argument that Trump's order violates the Constitution by discriminating against Muslims. "It does not favor Christian refugees at the expense of Muslims, but rather is neutral with respect to religion," Justice Department lawyers insist.

The federal filing also makes no fewer than eight references to a Boston-based federal judge's order Friday that took a dim view of the legal case against Trump's immigration move and refused to extend a more limited restraining order other federal judges there imposed about a week ago. The Boston order is set to expire on Monday, according to the plaintiffs in that case. Several other judges have also put holds on aspects of Trump's order, but none of those rulings was as sweeping as the one issued in Seattle.

The new Justice Department filing contends that the states lack standing to bring the suit because they're not directly affected by the president's order. However, the states contend that the order impacts their residents and has a more direct impact on operations of state colleges and universities with numerous foreign students.

Other courts blessed a similar argument in the lawsuit 26 states brought successfully halting President Barack Obama's 2014 executive action granting quasi-legal status and work permits to millions undocumented immigrants.

The stay motion in the Trump travel ban case faces one potentially serious technical hurdle: Temporary restraining orders are not ordinarily appealable. Usually a party who wants to appeal has to wait until the next stage in the process, a preliminary injunction.

However, Justice Department lawyers noted that the 9th Circuit has sometimes entertained appeals of so-called TROs when they share many of the features of a preliminary injunction.

“Where, as here, the ‘district court holds an adversary hearing and the basis for the court’s order was strongly challenged,’ and the length of the injunction (in this case, indefinite) ‘exceeds the ordinary duration’ of temporary restraining orders, the order is properly treated as … appealable,” the Justice Department motion argues.

If the 9th Circuit declines to step in and block Robart's order, the Justice Department could seek a stay from the Supreme Court. Such stay requests are usually referred to the full court, which has had only eight justices since the death last year of Antonin Scalia. That raises the prospect that the high court could deadlock, which would leave any 9th Circuit ruling in force.

As the Justice Department lawyers were preparing their legal motion, Trump repeatedly turned to Twitter on Saturday to call out Robart and his ruling.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump wrote Saturday morning. He also wrote that “death & destruction” could result if the U.S. is not allowed to restrict immigration.

Saturday evening Trump tweeted: "The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!"

The president resumed his tweeting on Sunday afternoon. "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!," he tweeted, followed a few minutes later by: "I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!"

After the appeal was filed, Trump told reporters as he made his way into a gala at his Mar-a-Lago estate benefiting the Red Cross: "We'll win. For the safety of the country, we'll win."

Trump's immigration order caused widespread confusion as to who would be affected by the order and prompted protests at airports across the country. As the outcry over the directive built, the administration took several steps to defuse the most controversial aspect of the order: its application to green-card holders.

First, officials granted case-by-case waivers to U.S. permanent residents who were often being detained for hours before being allowed to enter the U.S. Two days after Trump issued his order, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly granted a blanket waiver to all green-card holders. As sparring over the issue continued in various courts, White House counsel Don McGahn released what he termed "authoritative guidance" excluding from the scope of Trump's order U.S. permanent residents from the seven affected countries.