A federal appeals court denied the Trump administration's request to lift a lower court's order that blocked the president from unilaterally freezing billions in funding in loans, grants and financial assistance.

Three weeks into President Donald Trump's presidency, Tuesday's decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has taken up a challenge by the Trump administration, with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declining to grant the president's request. The decision came down at nearly the same time Trump told ABC News' Rachel Scott that he would "always abide by the courts."

In a two-page order, a panel of three judges on the 1st Circuit denied Trump's request for an administrative stay of the lower court's temporary restraining order, deferring to the district court to issue clarification about its earlier order.

"We are confident the District Court will act with dispatch to provide any clarification needed with respect to, among other things, the defendants' contention that the February 10 Order 'bars both the President and much of the Federal Government from exercising their own lawful authorities to withhold funding without the prior approval of the district court,'" they said in the order.

Each of the three judges who made the decision were nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents.

In making the decision, they noted that lawyers for the Department of Justice did "not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay" or articulate they suffered from the lower court's order.

"This Circuit has not addressed whether or when an administrative stay of the sort being requested here may be issued, and there is well-recognized uncertainty as to what standards guide the decision to issue one or not," the judges added.

The court will consider issuing a stay pending appeal later this week, according to the order. The Trump administration had asked for an immediate administrative pause, which was rejected, as well as a stay pending appeal by Friday.

The order follows the Trump administration reigniting the legal fight over whether it could unilaterally freeze the funding.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice had asked the Boston-based 1st Circuit to stay a decision by a federal judge in Rhode Island who determined that the Trump administration likely violated the Constitution when it tried to block trillions in federal funding through a now-rescinded directive of the Office of Management and Budget.

That Rhode Island judge on Monday issued an order finding that the Trump administration, in its effort to "root out fraud," was still cutting off funding in defiance of the court order. DOJ lawyers then argued the district court was overstepping its ability to rein in the power of the president.

"This appeal arises from an extraordinary and unprecedented assertion of power by a single district court judge to superintend and control the Executive Branch's spending of federal funds, in clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers," they wrote in an emergency application to the 1st Circuit.

DOJ attorneys argued the court's decision effectively requires the federal government to get "preclearance" from the district court for any decision relating to funding.

"It is self-evidently unworkable for the defendant agencies to be required to seek targeted relief from the district court every time they wish to withhold funds based on their own authorities," they said in the filing.

Lawyers representing the 23 state attorneys general are aggressively pushing back on the appeal, arguing that allowing the funding freeze will irreparably harm millions of people who rely on federal money.

"This case challenges defendants' implementation of a policy imposing across-the-board blanket freezes on payments to all recipients of federal funding associated with nearly all federal programs across the Nation, ranging from (for example) healthcare funding to education funding to critical energy and infrastructure grants -- a policy that had severe and destabilizing consequences for Plaintiff States and their residents," they said in the lawsuit.

The attorneys general also argued it is procedurally improper for the Trump administration to appeal a temporary restraining order, which generally can't be stayed.

"If the Court were to issue an administrative stay, defendants would immediately be free to resume this sweeping and illegal policy, harming Plaintiff States and the many recipients of federal funding that reside within their jurisdictions," they said.