WASHINGTON, United States (AFP) — President Donald Trump renewed his attack on the courts Wednesday, describing them as “so political” as a panel of judges weigh his executive order barring refugees and visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.

The contentious ban has been frozen by the courts and has embroiled Trump in an arm wrestle with the judicial branch, less than three weeks into his presidency.

Speaking to police chiefs and sheriffs, Trump expressed “amazement” over a hearing Tuesday of three federal appeals judges, who are considering whether to reinstate the ban.

Trump said what he heard in proceedings was “disgraceful, just disgraceful.”

“I don’t ever want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased and we haven’t had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political,” he said.

Trump’s comments have sparked a firestorm in a country where such personal and vitriolic attacks by a president on another branch of government are rare.

The uproar extended to Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

He described Trump’s attack on the Seattle judge who froze the ban as “disheartening” and “demoralizing” according to spokesman Ron Bonjean.

Trump’s ban was suspended nationwide on Friday, after two US states asked it to be overturned on grounds of religious discrimination and that it had caused “irreparable injury.”

Taking up the case, the federal court of appeals in San Francisco heard oral arguments Tuesday.

– Judges skeptical –

A lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department argued that the president had clear authority to order the ban on national security grounds.

“This is a traditional national security judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the president,” lawyer August Flentje argued.

Critics of the ban claim it violates the constitution by discriminating against people on the basis of their religion.

The judges — two of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, and a third by a Republican — appeared skeptical of the government’s case.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?” asked Judge Michelle Friedland, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama.

Flentje said the government had not had an opportunity to present such evidence, given the speed at which the case had moved.

The court must decide whether to maintain the lower court’s suspension, modify it, or lift it. Its ruling was expected before the end of the week.

Experts say they believe the argument to reinstate the ban is facing an uphill struggle.

But the case is likely to eventually wind up on appeal in the Supreme Court, which currently is evenly divided between liberal and conservative justices. A tie there would leave in place the appeals court decision.