A US federal court on Friday refused to put an emergency halt to President Donald Trump's (above) revised travel ban

A US federal court on Friday refused to put an emergency halt to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, saying lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.

States led by Washington and Minnesota challenged Trump's original executive order, issued in January, which sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and stop refugees from entering the US.

Seattle US District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against the first policy last month, prompting the president to lambaste him on Twitter as a 'so-called judge' who imperiled national security.

Seattle US District Court Judge James Robart - infamously referred to as a 'so called judge by Trump last month - issued a temporary restraining order against the first policy last month, prompting the president to lambaste him on Twitter as a 'so-called judge' who imperiled national security.

Robart on Friday declined to apply his first order to the new ban.

The judge told the states that they needed to file an amended complaint challenging the legality of the new order head-on, according to The Washington Post.

The states had hoped that Robart's previous decision to halt the original order would apply to the revised edition.

But the judge said that procedural reasons prevented him from placing an immediate stop to the current order.

Seattle US District Court Judge James Robart (above) said lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers

When Robart issued his ruling last month, it prompted the president to lambaste him on Twitter as a 'so-called judge' who imperiled national security.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin has filed an amended lawsuit against Trump's revised travel ban

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (left) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (right) said they, too, will join the legal fight against the revised travel ban

'Accordingly, the court also declines to resolve the apparent dispute between the parties concerning the applicability of the court's injunctive order to the New Executive Order until such time as an amended complaint that addresses the New Executive Order is properly before the court,' Robart wrote.

The attorney general of Washington state announced that it was reviewing Robart's decision and that it would decide what steps to take next.

HOW CAN A JUDGE OVERRIDE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER? According to Article III of the US Constitution, federal courts have the power to interpret the Constitution and declare an executive order as unconstitutional. Article III also gives the courts jurisdiction in all cases where the United States is a party, such as when a citizen or state sues the federal government. While lower federal courts can halt executive orders, the Supreme Court has ultimate authority and its decision becomes the law of the land. Advertisement

Trump signed a new executive order on Monday which removed Iraq from a list of countries targeted in a US travel ban.

The president signed the new executive order after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the courts.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters on Monday that the revised order 'is part of our efforts to eliminate vulnerabilities that radical Islamist terrorists can and will exploit for destructive ends.'

He said it 'will bolster the security of the united states and her allies.'

The president quietly signed the papers Monday morning out of view of cameras and journalists.

His action also revokes the first version, signed in late January.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended Trump's immigration policies, saying the US Constitution gives him the power 'to make national security judgments and to enforce our immigration policies in order to safeguard the American public.'

Sessions said 'this executive order is a proper exercise of that power.'

Trump's chief counselor Kellyanne Conway said on 'Fox & Friends' that the new order 'has an effective date of March 16th' – despite Trump's repeated insistence that the measure is a response to urgent national security threats.