A US federal appeals court has refused to reinstate President Donald Trump's ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, dealing another legal setback to the administration's immigration policy.
In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges from the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined on Thursday to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travellers to enter the US.
US District Judge James Robart issued the temporary restraining order on the travel ban on February 4, prompting Trump to label him a "so-called judge".
An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible.
The California court rejected the administration's claim that it did not have the authority to review the president's executive order.
"There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy," the court said.
Al Jazeera's Rob Reynolds, reporting from San Francisco, said the court presented "a point-by-point rebuttal of the government's case in the ruling".
The judges noted that the states had raised serious allegations about religious discrimination.
US District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban last week after Washington state and Minnesota sued.
The ban temporarily suspended the nation's refugee programme and immigration from countries that have raised security concerns.
Justice department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the US and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.
The states said Trump's travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities.
Citing Trump's campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the US, they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.
Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments on Tuesday conducted by phone - an unusual step - and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.
The judges chipped away at the administration's claim that the ban was motivated by "terrorism fears", but they also challenged the states' argument that it targeted Muslims.
"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.
Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.
"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries to terrorism?" Judge Michelle T Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, asked the justice department attorney.
The lower-court judge temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base.
Robart put the executive order on hold while the lawsuit worked its way through the courts.
After that ruling, the state department quickly said people from the seven countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - with valid visas could travel to the US.
The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there is no chance Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.
The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue.
The administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.
"We could go on for several more rounds ... but presumably everything would be done very quickly, just as this has happened," David Levine, a law professor at the University of California's Hastings College in San Francisco, told Al Jazeera.
"The US government has several choices. One is that they could go to the Supreme Court in Washington ... to see if they can get a stay.
"The other thing they can do is try to and get a majority of judges in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals here to agree to review the ruling.
"The best course, if I were advising the president, is to stay with the briefing schedule. The next step in Seattle is a preliminary hearing injunction hearing where the government will have a better opportunity to make a stronger record to support the executive order.
"And then we will see what Judge Robart says, and that then that decision could in turn be appealed back here, but without the procedurl impediments that the US government faltered on [today]".
Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies