A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries.

Updated at 11:35 a.m.

The Trump administration lost its bid Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court to terminate quickly an immigration program that allows hundreds of thousands of immigrant children, many now adults, to remain in the country lawfully.

The high court refused to act on the government's petition in U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California before an appeals court had ruled on the whether the decision to rescind the program was legal.

In denying review of the government's petition “without prejudice,” the justices said, “it is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case.”

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the high court to review and decide the legality of the Trump administration's Sept. 5 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The request urged the court to act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the government's appeal of a trial judge's preliminary injunction.

The Supreme Court rarely agrees to grant review before an appellate court has reached judgment. So-called “certiorari before judgment” is reserved for extraordinary cases; the last time it was granted was nearly 30 years ago.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said in a statement Monday: “While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA. We will continue to defend DHS' lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner.”

After the government announced the program's termination, five related lawsuits challenging the decision were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The challengers, led by Covington & Burling's Robert Long and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous, include the regents of the University of California, DACA recipients, California and a number of other states and counties, and a labor union. They argued that DACA's rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, and denied DACA recipients the equal protection of the laws.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ NLJ

“DACA is a lawful and important program that protects young people who came to this country as children and who know this country as their only home.  The Dreamers have relied on DACA to make decisions about their education, jobs, and families and to make valuable contributions to society as doctors, lawyers, teachers, and members of the military,” Boutrous said in a statement. “Two federal district courts have now recognized that the Trump administration's abrupt decision to end the program was unlawful.  We are confident that the court of appeals will reach the same conclusion and will affirm the district court's injunction that has blocked the rescission from taking effect.”

More than 100 U.S. companies, many in the technology sector, have lined up in support of the DACA program. A Mayer Brown team filed an amicus brief in California federal court. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman signed the brief on behalf of tech clients Airbnb, Square, Twitter and Yelp. In Washington, Microsoft Corp. and Princeton University, represented by Jenner & Block on the joint complaint, sued to keep DACA in place.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in January issued the first of two temporary nationwide injunctions after finding that the challengers to the government's action were likely to succeed in showing that the decision to rescind the DACA policy was arbitrary and capricious.

On Feb. 13, a second federal judge—Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn—issued an order keeping in place the DACA program. Under his order, the DACA program stays in place as it was before the Sept. 5 decision to wind it down. The government does not have to accept new applications and can consider renewals on a case-by-case basis, according to the judge.

That ruling in Vidal v. Nielsen stemmed from lawsuits filed by immigration rights groups and 15 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia.

In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Francisco asked the justices to decide two questions: whether the decision to rescind the DACA policy is reviewable by courts, and whether the decision is lawful.

➤➤  Also on Monday, the high court granted review in an arbitration case and an age discrimination dispute, both of which will likely be argued next term, beginning in October:

New Prime Inc. v. Oliviera: A broad interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act that exempts “seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” is the issue in this case brought by a Massachusetts trucking company. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr. represents the company.

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido: The court will referee a dispute among circuit courts over the scope of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. At issue is whether the law covers all state political subdivisions of the states or applies only to those subdivision with more than 20 employees, as is the case with private companies. E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe represents the Mt. Lemmon, Arizona fire district.

Tony Mauro in Washington contributed to this report. This post was updated with additional comment about the Supreme Court's order.

Read more:

Covington, Gibson Dunn Are Big Law's DACA Defense at Supreme Court

'The Words of the President' Doom Trump Travel Ban, Fourth Circuit Says

California Judge William Alsup Writes SCOTUS to Correct Trump's DOJ

NY Judge Garaufis Doubles Down on Nationwide DACA Injunction

States, Schools and Dreamers: Courts Bombarded With DACA Suits