Richard Wolf

USA TODAY

The Trump administration faces several hurdles in its effort to permanently reinstate an executive order that bans travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations as well as refugees.

By blocking enforcement of the measure Friday, a federal district judge in Washington state set up a judicial process that appears to favor immigration rights groups and other opponents to the ban at every potential stage of the process.

The Trump administration on Saturday night formally declared it was appealing the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Early Sunday, the appeals court denied the Justice Department's request for an immediate reinstatement of the executive order. It asked challengers of the ban to respond to the appeal, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by Monday afternoon.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, is considered the nation's most liberal, with 18 judges named by Democratic presidents and only seven by Republicans.

From the start, the administration faced an uphill battle in Judge James Robart's court. "The states are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief," he said in his seven-page order, referring to Washington state and Minnesota, which joined the case.

Justice Department appeals judge's order blocking Trump's immigration ban

And if the issue eventually gets to the Supreme Court, five of the eight justices would need to agree to block Robart's order. The court is divided 4-4 between liberal and conservative justices while it awaits confirmation hearings on federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump's nominee to succeed the late Antonin Scalia.

Trump's immigration ban: How we ended up back where we were 9 days ago ... for now

The executive order Trump signed Jan. 27 had suspended the entry of all refugees to the U.S. for 120 days, halted admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely and barred entry for three months to residents from the predominantly Muslim countries of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

Robart told both sides to propose a schedule for the case by Monday night. Under a tight timetable, he could demand an exchange of legal arguments in a matter of days before deciding whether to make his initial order more permanent.

Trump tweetstorm disparages judge for 'ridiculous' opinion, warns it could lead to 'death and destruction'

Tough talk from President Trump on Saturday morning and from White House press secretary Sean Spicer the night before did little to help the government's cause. Trump called Robart "a so-called judge" whose ruling was "ridiculous, and will be overturned." Spicer referred to "this outrageous order" but 10 minutes later revised his statement to remove the word "outrageous." Trump later in the day said "bad people are very happy" that Robart had blocked the ban.

In the meantime, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security reverted to normal visa and refugee policies Saturday. That could make it harder for the administration to win an emergency delay of Robart's order, lawyers representing immigrants affected by the ban said, because immigration and refugee policies merely are back to their earlier status.

Meet James Robart, the judge who halted Trump’s immigration ban

Other challenges to the ban, more limited in scope, are pending in district courts in Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Hawaii. Those states fall into the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th circuits, all of which may be asked to rule on appeals.

Eventually, the Supreme Court could be asked to weigh in — either because of a split among the circuit courts or because the issue is of major national importance. But with only eight justices and charges flying between the president and Democrats in Congress, the high court might be equally divided. That would leave the circuit court's ruling in place.