After first pledging to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the president issued a revised executive order on March 6, in an effort to address objections raised by the Seattle judge. Critics say his reasoning is flawed and assail the ban as discriminatory. If the government's request is granted the ban would go into effect.
The Justice Department argued that the lower courts were wrong were therefore wrong to apply the enforcement ban nationwide. In doing so, the government has recommitted itself to fighting for the ban, which the Fourth Circuit found "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".
However, so far, the courts have been unconvinced.
The court weighs several factors when considering emergency applications.
That was blocked after a legal challenge so Trump tried to resinstate a different order, removing Iraq from the list of target countries.
People stand on the steps of the Supreme Court at sunset February 13, 2016, in Washington. "It can not go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation", the majority opinion said.
The challengers contest the administration's claim that urgent action is needed for national security reasons. When a major presidential initiative is ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, a review by the Supreme Court nearly always follows.
The administration is banking on being able to persuade at least five justices, a majority of the nine-member court, that they should defer to the president's considerable authority over immigration and his responsibility for keeping the nation safe.
"Without campaign materials, the court of appeals' analysis collapses", Wall wrote in his high court request for an order to allow the policy to be enforced. That would limit the practical impact if the application were granted. He sometimes sides with the court's four liberals and could be the pivotal vote.
The president's appointment of Neil Gorsuch this year reinstated a 5-4 conservative majority.
The U.S. Justice Department has not made clear when the administration would make its formal appeal or whether it would wait for the 9th Circuit Court's ruling before appealing.
If the Supreme Court agrees to the administration's request, a 90-day ban on people entering the United States from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be immediately revived.
In turning to the high court, Justice Department lawyers said the 4th Circuit should have considered only the language of the executive order and not second guessed the president's motivations. If the court accepts the filing, the case could be heard at the beginning of their next term, in October.
After a series of other cases at district level, a federal appeals court last week maintained the freeze on the travel ban.
Given the case's high-profile nature, the full appeals court in Richmond heard the arguments - bypassing the usual initial three-judge panel - for the first time in a quarter of a century.