Michelle T Friedland, William C Canby and Richard R Clifton). The hearing may be heard via this LINK. In the appeal, the Federal Government was asking the Appeals Court to STAY the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Judge Robart - previous post. A Stay would fully reinstate the President's Executive Order No. 13769 of 27th January 2017 - "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"
Documents etc filed in the case may be seen via - State of Washington and State of Minnesota v Trump
The Courty of Appeals refused the Stay requested by the Federal Government - see Judgment of 9th February (29 pages pdf). The BBC 10th February - Trump loses appeal court bid to reinstate travel ban
The court noted -
"At issue in this emergency proceeding is Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which, among other changes to immigration policies and procedures, bans for 90 days the entry into the United States of individuals from seven countries. Two States challenged the Executive Order as unconstitutional and violative of federal law, and a federal district court preliminarily ruled in their favor and STATE OF WASHINGTON v TRUMP temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order. The Government now moves for an emergency stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order while its appeal of that order proceeds. To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."
The Guardian 10th February - Joshua Matz - An extraordinary act of judicial courage