By Maura Dolan

and Jaweed Kaleem

Los Angeles Times

A panel of federal judges questioned attorneys Tuesday on whether to extend a court order blocking a moratorium on admissions to the U.S. from seven countries in the Middle East and Africa.

A three-judge panel heard arguments from lawyers for the Trump administration and the states of Washington and Minnesota, which challenged Trump’s executive order.

A ruling in State of Washington & State of Minnesota vs. Trump, Case 17-35105, was not expected immediately, but probably will come later this week.

Judge Michelle T. Friedland, an appointee of President Barack Obama, presided over the hearing. Also on the panel were William C. Canby Jr., an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, and Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

U.S. District Judge James L. Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order Friday against President Donald Trump’s controversial Jan. 27 order that suspended entry to the U.S. for immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, all primarily Muslim countries. The order also temporarily barred resettlement of refugees in the U.S.

The Justice Department quickly asked the 9th Circuit to lift the hold and put the ban back in place.

The states are challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s order, arguing it was motivated by animus to Muslims and would hurt the states’ economies and universities. Government lawyers counter that the moratorium was not aimed at any particular religion but at nations associated with terrorism.

The 9th Circuit at this stage will not be deciding the key constitutional issues in the case.

Instead, the panel will determine only whether the court order against enforcement of the ban should continue until the complex legal debate over executive power and due process is resolved.

To justify such an order, a judge must find that there would be irreparable harm if it were not issued. Robart went a step further, and also found that the states were likely to succeed in their challenge.

But many of the questions the 9th Circuit must resolve are more mundane.

Did the states have standing to sue? To be able to sue in federal court, an individual or state must show evidence of direct harm.

The Trump administration contends the potential harm cited by the states — business loss, reduced tax revenue and disruption of higher education — are merely speculative.

Another technical matter is whether a temporary restraining order can even be appealed in federal court. The states argue that Trump cannot challenge a temporary block on his order until later in the proceedings.

If the 9th Circuit upholds the restraining order, the administration can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the legality of the hold is resolved, the case would return to Robart in Seattle.

Robart, a Republican, was unanimously confirmed in 2004 after being nominated by Bush. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat, lauded his appointment.

Prior to moving to the bench, Robart worked without pay to provide legal services for refugees in the U.S.

The judge gained notoriety — and sparked criticism — last year when he remarked in court that “black lives matter” while presiding over a consent decree matter that required Seattle police to address charges of excessive force and bias.

Washington state Solicitor Gen. Noah G. Purcell argued for the states.

August E. Flentje, special counsel to the assistant U.S. attorney general of the civil division, represented the Trump administration.