State Attorney General Doug Chin on Thursday vowed to appeal to a higher court after a federal judge in Honolulu denied the state’s emergency motion on President Donald Trump’s partial travel ban.

The question is, Which higher court?

U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson on Thursday denied the state’s motion to clarify what constitutes a close family relationship in the rules of the travel ban, and did not address the substance of either party’s arguments about who should or shouldn’t be let into the country under Trump’s executive order.

But Watson did say the question should be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the same court that made the modifications to the injunction.

“The key takeaway from Judge Watson’s order is that he declined to address the specific merits of our request to clarify the scope of the injunction of the travel and refugee bans,” Chin said in a statement Thursday evening.

“The scope of the travel and refugee bans badly needs to be resolved and not just according to the Trump Administration’s interpretation,” Chin said. “While we understand Judge Watson’s direction to address our request to the United States Supreme Court, we must evaluate that against the normal course of order as it relates to appeals and the clarification of injunctions. Whatever course it takes, we will get this resolved.”

Joshua Wisch, special assistant to the attorney general, also acknowledged that “we are still determining to which court to appeal.”

In its motion, the state asked Watson to clarify what the high court meant last month when it said the government can refuse entry to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen who do not have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The court said a personal relationship must be a close familial one.

The state objected to the administration’s interpretation, which prohibited the entry of grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins and other close relatives.

In his ruling, Watson said that while he was the one who first issued the temporary restraining order against the revised travel ban in March, the modifications to his order were made by the Supreme Court in June, and therefore any clarification should come from the high court.

“This Court declines to usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court to interpret its own order and defers,” he wrote.

In his conclusion, Watson said the request was “denied without prejudice to its re-filing with the Supreme Court,” although he added a footnote: “Of course, if the Supreme Court wishes for this Court to decide the merits of the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ Motion, this Court will promptly do so.”

The Trump administration said it was relying on U.S. immigration laws to include grandparents and grandchildren, among other relations, in the partial travel ban on citizens from the six predominantly Muslim countries.

The state countered in its motion that the administration is using the wrong standard to decide who can be included in the travel ban. Other immigration laws allow a broader interpretation, the state argued.

In Washington, Hawaii’s hired attorney, Neal Katyal, responded to the ruling on Twitter: “Judge Watson in #HawaiivsTrump has just ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court is the place to clarify the issues about grandmothers, refugees, etc.”