The order temporarily halts the USA refugee program and travel from six mostly Muslim countries.
The new order undoubtedly reduces the number of people with standing to sue, but civil liberties advocates and others say it is still legally problematic.
February 7: A panel of three judges hears arguments from Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell and DOJ attorney August Flentje.
The lawsuit comes as the Justice Department files a response to Hawaii’s effort to get a restraining order on the revised executive order before it goes into effect at midnight Thursday.
In both cases, the challengers say the executive order would prevent Americans from arranging for travel by relatives in the six listed countries.
Here’s a look at what to expect in three closely watched cases.
Last Wdnesday, Ferguson said that he would ask a federal judge to extend a restraining order in place against Trump’s old travel ban to the new one. His ruling was later upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The first travel ban, signed on January 27, placed a temporary ban on travelers entering the United States from seven predominately Muslim nations – Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Syria. The new order still applies to citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen but has explicit waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States. That request was submitted to Robart, the same Seattle-based judge who’s handling the case involving Washington and the other state governments.
“We feel very confident”, he said, “with how that was crafted and the input that was given”.
This stopped travellers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria, from entering the United States.
The joint suit comes just days after Hawaii leviedthe first legal challenge to the new order. For example, White House adviser Stephen Miller noted that any changes to the first executive order would be “mostly minor, technical differences”, and that “f$3 undamentally, you are still going to have the same, basic policy outcomes for the country”.
A Department of Justice spokeswoman said it was reviewing the complaint and would respond to the court.
Where this leaves Mr Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban was not immediately clear. A third hearing is possible, depending on what action is taken by a federal judge overseeing an additional challenge brought by the Washington state attorney general.
This new ban will have the same impact as the older version, but is written in a way to avoid challenges by the court. The new ban is different from the old one, but still bans travelers from six majority-Muslim countries, and still restricts refugee resettlement.
In addition, the states and civil liberties groups say USA immigration law generally prohibits the government from discriminating based on nationality when issuing immigrant visas. “More than 300 people who came here as refugees are under FBI investigation for potential terrorism-related activities”, Sessions said.
The U.S. Travel Assn., the trade group for the nation’s $2.1-trillion travel industry, echoed Wooden’s comments.