US Federal judge not ready to rule on blocking new travel ban

In February, Robart suspended Trump’s first travel ban, a broad executive order issued January 27 that suspended the refugee program, halted travel of citizens of seven Muslim majority countries, including those who already had been issued visas, and triggered chaos and protests at airports worldwide.

Media caption ” We trust President Trump on travel ban” What is different about the new order?

Which states have launched challenges and why? Attorney General Douglas Chin also said that the order is, “nothing more than Muslim ban 2.0”.

California’s attorney general said on Monday that it would be joining Washington in its lawsuit; other states like Minnesota, New York and OR have also signed on to the challenge.

Trump’s revised order, announced last week, bans visa approvals from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspends the USA refugee resettlement program for 120 days but includes new exemptions and removes language that singled out religious minorities and certain nationalities.

It lasted only a week. “If the Seattle injunction is kept in place nationwide, then there may be less urgency for an injunction from other courts”. It was later upheld on appeal. Plaintiff Ismail Elshikh, a Hawaii resident who argued that the ban would affect plans for his Syrian mother-in-law to visit his family, has no standing because his mother-in-law has not yet been denied a visa, the motion says.

In so doing it aims to avoid the bungled implementation of the original, which still managed to win the backing of more than half of registered voters, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll published last month. To permit Mr Trump to go forward with his March 6th order is to entertain a “game of whack-a-mole, forced to start anew at a defendant’s whim”. “When a court enjoins a defendant from implementing policies”, the states write, “the defendant can not evade that injunction simply by reissuing the same basic policies in a new form”. “Yet that is what Defendants attempt here”.

The states asked that Robart hold a hearing before Thursday to hear arguments from both sides, but the judge said he would not commit to that timeline.

The U.S. Justice Department said in a filing this week the original order had been revoked and the court’s restraining order does not limit the government’s ability to immediately enforce the new order.

A second defeat for the president would be deeply embarrassing.

The first ban sparked numerous lawsuits, including the Syrian refugee’s initial federal complaint in Wisconsin. Scarborough cited that the seven countries (now six) that were chosen for the ban were selected bipartisanly by Congress during the Obama administration as the nations that posed the greatest threat when it came to giving out visas.

In another legal challenge, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint on behalf of several refugee assistance groups over the controversial executive order.

Their comments echo those being made in court by U.S. states claiming that the modified measures discriminate against Muslims and are detrimental to American interests. “Although he was repeatedly asked to reconsider this promise, he refused”.

Simply put, the temporary ban must, indeed, be temporary, and some improved security procedures must be accomplished by it. OR joined that case Thursday, while NY and MA officials have indicated plans to do so soon.

Hawaii has also filed suit against the new order, as have rights groups and immigrant advocacy associations, which filed papers with a judge in Maryland.

More than 130 foreign policy experts have denounced President Donald Trump’s revised immigration order halting travel from six predominantly Muslim countries.

“This first ban is a crucial part of the background of the second ban”. The city forecasts welcoming 300,000 fewer worldwide visitors in 2017, representing a 2.1% decrease on last year’s figures.