In a bid to win reinstatement of the Trump administration's controversial ban on immigrants from several Muslim countries, government lawyers on Monday argued that the president has broad authority to exclude “aliens,” who they said have few constitutional rights in the U.S.

In papers filed Monday afternoon, the Justice Department described a federal judge's restraining order blocking implementation of the immigration directive as a “sweeping, nationwide injunction” that is “vastly over broad.”

“An alien outside the United States has no right to a judicial review of a denial of a visit,” government attorneys argued.

The exclusion of citizens of other countries from the U.S. is a “fundamental act of sovereignty” inherent in the president's executive power to control the nation's foreign affairs, the administration said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled a telephone hearing in the case for Tuesday afternoon and could rule after that.

The appeals court is accepting legal arguments on whether it should stay a ruling Friday from a federal judge in Seattle that blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump's Jan. 27 executive order, which suspends entry to immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, and also suspends resettlement of refugees in the U.S.

The order appropriately targeted the seven nations because they are “associated with a heightened risk of terrorism,” the administration said in its brief.

In earlier written arguments, lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota argued that a temporary hold on Trump's executive order should remain in place until a lower court determines whether the order is unconstitutional.

The state of Washington cited a litany of problems caused by Trump's order. More than 7,000 non-citizen immigrants from the affected countries live in Washington, the state told the appeals court.

“Those who were abroad were blocked from returning home,” the states argued. “Husbands were separated from wives, brothers from sisters, and parents from their children. Some who had waited decades to see family members had that reunion taken away without warning or reason.”

Nearly 100 businesses, including well-known technology firms such as Apple, Google, Twitter and Uber, filed arguments supporting the states' case.

The companies argued that the ban was disruptive, making it more difficult for them to recruit and retain employees and threatening their ability to attract talent, business, and investment.

A number of former national security and intelligence officials — including former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former defense secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta, and ex-national security adviser Susan Rice — also sided with the states.

In a declaration, they argued that Trump's order “could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counter-terrorism and national security partnerships.”

They said the ban on immigration from targeted countries could boost the militant group Islamic State's propaganda and recruitment “by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam.” They said it would hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to help them address the threat.

Trump's Jan. 27 order, which he said was designed to help the country block potential terrorists, prompted chaos at airports and worldwide protests.

The order also suspended new refugee settlements in the U.S., targeting Syrian refugees with indefinite suspension.

Several courts across the country have ruled against portions of the ban, but U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle on Friday imposed a temporary restraining order setting aside enforcement of its key provisions nationwide, pending a full legal review.

The Justice Department is asking the appeals court to stay that order, and Monday's brief from the states argues against that.

The states in their brief filed early Monday contended the order hurt Washington's economy by reducing sales tax revenue from travelers and depriving major tech companies of the work of skilled immigrants.

Hundreds of faculty, staff and students from Washington's public university also suffered, the states contended. Some were immediately stranded overseas, and others have been unable to travel for research, according to the states.

“Staying the district court's ruling would re-institute those harms, separating families, stranding our university students and faculty, and barring travel,” the states argued.

The states said the 9th Circuit should not permit constitutional violations of due process and the free exercise of religion based on the Trump administration's “unsupported invocation of national security.”

While Trump's order remains under review by the lower court, “refugees and immigrants from the banned countries will continue to undergo the rigorous screening processes that already existed prior to the order,” the states told the appeals court.

The 9th Circuit refused over the weekend to lift the temporary block on Trump's travel ban until considering more arguments.

Since then, group after group has filed asking to enter the case on the side of the states, including the petition from businesses.

Hawaii, in a request to intervene, also argued the ban would hurt tourism and reduce tax revenue, but its request to join the case was denied Monday.

In appealing the hold on the executive order, lawyers for the government argued that Washington state lacked standing — or authority — to challenge Trump's moratorium.

maura.dolan@latimes.com