A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously refused on Thursday to reinstate President Donald Trump's travel ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations.

In a 29-page ruling, the panel -- made up of one Republican and two Democratic appointees -- wrote that they're keeping the ban on hold because they do not believe the Trump administration is likely to succeed upon appeal, or that the administration demonstrated that the ban needs to be instated.

The executive order sought to ban people from seven majority-Muslim nations from entering the U.S. for 90 days, and to halt the nation's refugee program for at least 120 days.

The ban was put on hold last Friday by a Seattle-based judge, who issued a temporary restraining order after the states of Washington and Minnesota sued. California and more than a dozen other states joined the suit.

"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 panel wrote in their Thursday order.

The president responded on Twitter about 20 minutes later:

Much of the government's argument against the temporary restraining order was that the states did not have legal standing to challenge the president's executive order. But the appeals court wrote that the states do have standing because they demonstrated "alleged harms" that can be traced to the executive order.

The court also took issue with the government's argument that the courts did not have the authority to review the legality of Trump's executive order, writing that while the courts have historically given deference to the executive branch around immigration policy, they've rejected any claims that such policies are not subject to judicial review.

"The Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections," the panel wrote. "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."

In fact, the court wrote, "federal courts routinely review the constitutionality of -- and even invalidate -- actions taken by the executive to promote national security, and have done so even in times of conflict."

You can read the judge's order and all the previous court filings below:

[ninthCircutiStay0209]