Trump issued an executive order on January 27, barring travelers from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days and all refugees from entering the country for 120 days.
He said that Trump's order legal, and it was ruled against because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the "most left-wing, overturned" court in the country.
In its arguments, the Justice Department had insisted that the President had the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States - and that the courts should not attempt to second-guess his determination that such measures were needed to prevent terrorism on American soil.
The Justice Department quickly appealed, filing a brief with the 9th Circuit, arguing the president alone has the right to determine who should or shouldn't be allowed to enter the country.
In response, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat who leads one of the states that challenged the ban, said: "Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you".
The White House insists the decree is in the interest of national security, giving the new administration time to beef up vetting procedures to keep potential terrorists out of the country.
PM Modi redefines SCAM
The PM urged the voters to defeat parties involved in graft and leaders who promoted caste and vote-bank politics. They will kick up a storm because Modi has robbed them". "I will not let the robbers rest".
The three judges said the states had shown that even temporary reinstatement of the ban would cause harm. Of course, there was no stopping the social media users thereafter.
Protesters at JFK airport after Trump's executive order barring travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Thursday's decision gave hints that Trump's many statements and tweets about Muslim immigration could come back to haunt him as the case goes forward. That means the Trump administration would need to convince five justices to grant the government's motion to stay Robart's decision, which is unlikely given that it was a temporary restraining order and not a ruling on the merits of the executive order.
They cited the president's campaign promise of stopping Muslims from entering the United States. "Courts must act fast!"
Instead, the appeals judges teed up the issue for further review, saying it's "well established" that evidence outside the text of a law can be considered in cases that consider these "significant constitutional questions". The court also disagreed with Flentje's claim that blocking Trump's ban would lead to heightened issues of national security compared to what was happening before the ban was implemented.