The gay GOP group challenging the military's ban on open gay service asked the Supreme Court on Friday to reinstate a lower court's order against enforcement of the policy.

In their motion, lawyers for the Log Cabin Republicans argue that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it granted the Obama administration a permanent hold on a trial judge's order to stop enforcing “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” while the government prepares an appeal to U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' September ruling striking down the law as unconstitutional and subsequent injunction against its enforcement. The injunction was in place for 8 days before the same court set aside the order temporarily.

The Supreme Court is only being asked to consider enforcement of the policy as an appeal moves forward.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has already asked the federal government for its response to the plea, to be filed by 5PM Wednesday.

“It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court,” R. Clarke Cooper, the group's executive director, told CNN.

President Barack Obama has pledged to repeal the law, but says he prefers a legislative solution and has urged Congress to act. Senators are being lobbied to take a second look at repeal during the upcoming lame-duck session that begins on November 15. But recent GOP gains are certain to embolden Republican senators who oppose repeal of the law that has ended the military careers of more than 13,000 gay and bisexual service members.

Log Cabin lawyers in their filing argued that the Ninth Circuit's order “was an abuse of discretion.”

“It ignored controlling precedent, including Lawrence (Lawrence v. Texas). It sidestepped the requirement that respondents show a likelihood of success on the merits, a showing they failed to make. It gave no consideration whatsoever to the injury that will befall the applicant from a stay. And it applied the wrong standard to respondent's claim of irreparable injury, which rested entirely on speculation, by accepting as sufficient the respondents' 'colorable' assertions of harm and injury, rather than requiring them to show a 'likelihood' of irreparable injury as this Court's precedents dictate.”