'SEE YOU IN COURT!' Donald Trump tweets that he'll appeal San Francisco court's ruling - as judges REFUSED to reinstate his travel ban  

  • A federal appeals court in San Francisco released its ruling tonight on President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban - saying it would not reinstate it 
  • Trump responded by taking to Twitter and writing in all caps: 'SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!'  
  • The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided it would not block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban 
  • Last week, a Seattle-based judge issued a temporary restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and Minnesota sued the U.S. government  

Just minutes after a San Francisco appeals court ruled not to reinstate President Donald Trump's travel ban, the president lashed out on Twitter in all caps.

'SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!' Trump wrote. 

He also spoke to reporters in the West Wing and called the judges ruling a 'political decision.' 

He reiterated that he would appeal: 'It’s a very very serious situation so we look forward to seeing them in court,' he said, according to NBC News

A panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided unanimously that they wouldn't issue the government a stay, which would have let the ban go back into effect. 

Scroll down for video 

Shortly after the decision was announced, President Donald Trump announced the government would be repealing the decision in a tweet using all caps 

Shortly after the decision was announced, President Donald Trump announced the government would be repealing the decision in a tweet using all caps 

President Donald Trump has used Twitter over the last few days to try and encourage the three judge panel to rule in his way. They didn't. 

President Donald Trump has used Twitter over the last few days to try and encourage the three judge panel to rule in his way. They didn't. 

Instead they wrote in their decision that they believed the government, which includes Trump's White House, was unlikely to win an appeal. 

U.S. District Judge James Robart (pictured) rules last Friday to suspend President Trump's travel ban 

U.S. District Judge James Robart (pictured) rules last Friday to suspend President Trump's travel ban 

The decision also said that the states suing, Washington and Minnesota, had standing in the case because their public universities were suffering harm from the executive order, which was preventing scholars from the seven countries from coming in.  

The judges wrote that they believed Washington and Minnesota raised serious allegations about religious discrimination in the ban.  

The appeals court was looking at a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travelers to enter the U.S. 

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible, though the White House could also keep the case in the 9th Circuit and have it heard 'en banc,' by all the judges. 

U.S. 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 program and immigration from countries that have raised terrorism concerns. 

David Pearce, left, and his daughter Crissy Pearce hold signs outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017

David Pearce, left, and his daughter Crissy Pearce hold signs outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017

Justice Department lawyers appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the United States 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 U.S., they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments 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 hammered 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 W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.

Protesters stood outside the San Francisco court that ruled tonight - refusing to reinstate Donald Trump's travel ban 

Protesters stood outside the San Francisco court that ruled tonight - refusing to reinstate Donald Trump's travel ban 

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 works 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 U.S. The decision led to tearful reunions at airports round the country.

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, and there's 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.

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now