The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Tuesday denied an emergency motion by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reinstate federal aid funding freezes. The panel of three judges unanimously stated that the existing Temporary Restraining Order issued by a district court on February 1 was lawful.

In the short decision, the court addressed the uncertainty of whether they had jurisdiction to rule on the matter. The issue of jurisdiction centered on the Trump administration’s decision to file an appeal before the district court could consider a stay of the Temporary Restraining Order.

Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 8(a)(1)(A), parties requesting a stay of judgment from a district court must allow time for that court to rule before proceeding to an appellate court. An exception is provided if “moving first in the district court would be impracticable,” or if the district court denied the stay.

The DOJ argued that the district court order was vaguely worded and that the judge had misconstrued the purpose of the freeze. They claimed that bypassing the district court allowed the president to exercise his lawful authority over executive agencies and stop “judicial overreach.”

The judges concluded that they did have jurisdiction. However, they rejected the administration’s arguments stating that the district court should be allowed to clarify the order’s language before moving to appeals court.

The court’s rejection of the emergency motion marks the fourth setback for Trump’s efforts to freeze federal aid funding. A temporary block was granted in January with another granted by a different court shortly thereafter. Justice John J. McConnell, Jr., chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, issued the second block and accused the administration of defying the judicial orders. The US Supreme Court has stated that refusing to obey a court order generally risks criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect.