The Trump administration then decided that spouses, parents, children, fiancés and siblings would be exempt from the ban, while grandparents and other family members traveling from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be barred.
Trump said the measure was necessary to prevent extremist attacks. However, opponents including states and refugee advocacy groups sued to stop it, disputing its security rationale and saying it discriminated against Muslims.
A Honolulu judge on Thursday rejected a request by Hawaii to narrow the government's implementation of the ban, saying the state should directly ask the Supreme Court to clarify its ruling.
Instead, Hawaii appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying in a court filing on Friday that the appeals court has the power to narrow the travel ban while it decides how to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling.
"Every day that passes is a day when our government is turning away human beings — from newborn children to elderly grandparents...," Hawaii wrote in its court filing.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Hawaii's request. After the judge's ruling on Thursday, the department had said that it was "confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will again vindicate the president."
Justice Department lawyers have argued that its definition of close family "hews closely" to language found in U.S. immigration law, while Hawaii's attorney general's office said other parts of immigration law include grandparents in that group.
The roll-out of the narrowed version of the ban was more subdued last week than in January when Trump first signed a more expansive version of the order. That sparked protests and chaos at airports around the country and the world.
More about: #TravelBan
