[3] The federal government argued that the Constitution granted the president "unreviewable authority" over immigration matters and that the non-citizens the executive order affected did not have due process rights.

[7][8] During his initial election campaign, Trump had proposed a temporary, conditional, and "total and complete" ban on Muslims entering the United States.

[10][13] On June 12, in reference to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting that occurred on the same date, Trump, via Twitter, renewed his call for a Muslim immigration ban.

Affected travelers immediately began filing legal challenges to the order through habeas corpus petitions and injunctive relief.

[28] During the proceedings, Judge Robart requested the defense provide statistics on the number of arrests of nationals from the seven countries since 9/11, thus supporting their burden of proof.

[29] Trump responded by tweeting, "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

[35] The Court subsequently issued an order directing the United States to file a response to the emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction by March 14, 2017.

In its request, the federal government contended that the temporary restraining order should be stayed because the judicial branch lacks the authority to review presidential actions over immigration.

[47] On February 6, a group of former top U.S. foreign policy, national security and intelligence officials filed a joint declaration in support of Washington and Minnesota.

The group stated that the executive order "cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds"; was "ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained"; and injures U.S. interests.

[48] On the same day, amicus briefs in support of the challenge were filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center; HIAS; the Anti-Defamation League; the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and a group of four constitutional scholars (Kristin Collins, Judith Resnik, Stephen I. Vladeck, and Burt Neuborne).

Also on February 6, an amicus brief in support of the challenge was filed by 15 states and the District of Columbia, represented by their respective attorneys general.

The states signing on to the brief were New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

"[51]On February 7, New Hampshire and North Carolina as represented by their respective attorneys general joined the amicus brief in support of the challenge.

On February 9, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam decision, unanimously denied the request for a stay of the temporary restraining order.

"[55][54] The court denied the stay as they found the federal government failed to prove the first two questions, and that the last two tip in favor of the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota.

"[58] The day after the denial of stay, the 9th Circuit ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether the motion should be reheard en banc.

[65] Judge Stephen Reinhardt added a concurrence, alone, where he wrote "I am proud to be a part of this court and a judicial system that is independent and courageous".

[66] Judge Marsha Berzon, however, alone, added a concurrence to the denial of reconsideration where she criticized the dissenters for the procedural irregularity of attempting to reconsider a case without a request by either party and after the appeal had been dismissed.