Washington state's Attorney General's Office has said it is 'pleased' that the case against Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban and immigration freeze will go ahead without waiting for a ruling from an appeals court.

The 9th Circuit appeals court is currently deciding whether to take another vote on whether to overturn Judge James Robart's temporary halt on Trump's executive order - a refusal that caused the president to furiously tweet 'SEE YOU IN COURT!'

But on Monday Robart denied a request by the Justice Department to delay a suit aimed at the ban while the 9th Circuit decides on a course of action, saying Trump himself had said his order was urgent.

The office of AG Bob Ferguson then tweeted: 'Pleased to see Judge Robart reject Trump Administration's request to delay. We will, indeed, see you in court.'

Pleased: The office of Washington AG Bob Ferguson (left) said they were 'pleased' that a case against Trump's immigration ban wouldn't wait for an appeal ruling against a related injunction

Mocking: The office posted this mocking tweet, saying they looked forward to seeing Trump's administration in court. Washington and Minnesota brought the case against the president

Reference: The tweet referenced this vitriolic post by Trump, who was furious after a failed attempt to get an injunction against his travel ban removed

Michelle Bennett, a Justice Department lawyer, had called for Robart's case to be temporarily postponed, pending the 9th Circuit's decision.

Bennett asked Robart to stick with a previous schedule that gives the government until April 3 to file a response to the states' complaint.

Robart said he was 'surprised' by that statement, since the president had said he wants to 'see you in court.'

Washington and Minnesota, the states that brought the original case against Trump, meanwhile, said that formal evidence gathering should begin immediately

'Given the gravity of the states' constitutional allegations, defendants' stated national security concerns and the public interests at stake, the states respectfully submit that discovery should proceed without delay,' their lawyers said in a legal brief.

Evidence gathering would not affect the appellate courts' ruling, they said.

Robart agreed, saying said there is a 'very sensitive time issue' in the case and he wasn't prepared to slow it down.

The legal saga began on February 3, when Washington and Minnesota filed a suit in a Seattle court against Trump's ban on entry to the US by people citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Visa holders (and, briefly, green card holders) were barred from entering for 90 days, and all refugees for 120 days, except refugees from Syria, who were banned indefinitely.

Robart, who presided over the case, declared a temporary injunction on the executive order, stopping it from being enacted, much to the annoyance of the Trump administration.

Pressing on: DoJ attorney Michelle Bennett Washington (left) asked for the case to be delayed. But judge James Robart (right) said Trump himself stressed the urgency of the case

They then took the injunction to the 9th Circuit appeals court, where three judges unanimously voted on February 9 to reject the appeal, keeping the injunction in place.

In deciding whether to put Trump's order on hold, the three-judge panel said the administration presented no evidence that any foreigner from the seven countries was responsible for a terrorist attack in the US.

But an unnamed member of the 9th Circuit then said that there should be a second vote with a larger selection of judges.

The 9th Circuit is now deciding whether to have the case reheard in front of an 11-judge panel.

The decision on whether to hold the second hearing - known as an en banc review - will be made by the full 25-judge panel.

In a separate case on Monday, a Virginia judge issued a state-wide preliminary injunction against portions of Trump's order that dealt with visa holders.

However, it will have no immediate effect as Robart's February 3 ruling applied to the entire county.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring in a Monday night conference call with reporters described the order as 'unlawful, unconstitutional, and un-American,' and said it was conceived in 'religious bigotry.'

As well as challenging the Washington and Minnesota suit in court, Trump has said that he may issue a 'brand new order' as soon as this week.

He has not yet said what that order may involve.