WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Monday laid out its first significant legal defense of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, arguing in a court filing that the harm opponents say it causes is "speculative" and that the president was well within his authority to issue the directive.

Responding to a lawsuit by Hawaii, Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump's new executive order solves any possible legal problems that came with the first one, because it is narrower in scope and outlines a robust list of people who might be exempted.

"Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the sweeping relief they seek," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Opponents of Trump's executive order have asked federal judges in several states to block the administration from enforcing the directive, and two judges have scheduled hearings for Wednesday to hear arguments on the matter. The order -- which suspends the U.S.' refugee program and bars the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- is set to take effect Thursday unless a court intervenes.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selectedimmigration statistics, U.S. border map]

Hawaii was the first state to sue over the directive, arguing that the new executive order, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damages the state's robust tourism industry.

In support of Hawaii's lawsuit, several states, as well as Washington, D.C., filed documents in federal court Monday saying they want to collectively file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief.

The states are Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

A federal judge in Honolulu is to hear the motion Wednesday.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

Hawaii's lawyers pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the economic harm alleged by the state was "mere speculation" and that Elshikh's mother-in-law had no reason to sue because she had not been denied a waiver to enter the country. The new executive order, unlike the old, spelled out a list of people who might be granted exemptions, including those seeking to visit or live with family in the United States.

"The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "Among other things, therefore, plaintiffs cannot show that any individual whom they seek to protect is in imminent risk of being denied entry due to the Order."

The state will have to convince a judge that Trump's ban is likely to ultimately be found unconstitutional and that it will impose immediate, irreparable harm unless it is stopped. A hearing in the case is Wednesday afternoon.

Federal judges in Washington state and Maryland were also considering separate challenges to the new ban, and either could pre-empt the need for action in Hawaii. A hearing in the Maryland case is Wednesday morning, and Washington on Monday formally asked a judge to enforce his freeze of the previous ban on the new one and to schedule a hearing for today.

"While the new section differs from the original by excluding Iraqis, lawful permanent residents, and visa-holders, it bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries, including: relatives of U.S. citizens, students who have been admitted to state universities, prospective employees of state universities and private businesses, and many others," lawyers for Washington wrote. "This Court's original injunction protected these individuals and institutions, and the Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants' request to narrow the injunction to exclude them."

The administration has argued that the ban is necessary for national security reasons, though many diplomatic and national security professionals have said they disagree with that assessment and that the new ban would probably not have kept out anyone responsible for a fatal terrorist attack since 2001.

In their filing, Justice Department lawyers pointed to 300 people who entered the United States as refugees and are under investigation in terrorism-related cases, and asserted that hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted of such offenses.

"More fundamentally, plaintiffs miss the point," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The Order's objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks before they occur. And that is precisely why the Order focuses on six countries that Congress and the prior Administration recently determined pose the greatest risk of terrorist infiltration in the future."

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently blocked the administration from enforcing the order with respect to one family. In that case, a man who had fled Syria and been granted asylum in the United States sued so the ban would not be applied to his wife and 3-year-old daughter, who are still in Aleppo and have asylum applications being processed.

The judge ruled that the family had "some likelihood of success on the merits" and that the man was "at great risk of suffering irreparable harm" if the order were not blocked, so far as it applied to his family.

Information for this article was contributed by staff members of The Associated Press.</s>SEATTLE -- More than a half-dozen states trying to block President Trump’s revised travel ban moved forward Monday with a pair of lawsuits while the government asked that the order be allowed to take effect this week.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, joined in his lawsuit by heavily Democratic California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon, asked for a hearing with a federal judge in Seattle before the administration plans to implement the ban Thursday on new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim nations.

A hearing in a separate lawsuit by Hawaii already has been scheduled for Wednesday.

Ferguson said the revised ban is still unconstitutional and harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon who rely on foreign workers.

“No one is above the law, not even the president -- and I will hold him accountable to the Constitution,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Cutting some illegal aspects of President Trump’s original travel ban does not cure his affront to our Constitution.”

Ferguson filed new court documents after the judge who put Mr. Trump’s original order on hold said last week he would not immediately rule on whether his decision applies to the new version. U.S. District Judge James Robart told the federal government to quickly respond to Ferguson’s claims but said he would not hold a hearing before Wednesday.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the most populous U.S. state was joining Washington state’s challenge, saying the order, despite its changes, is an attack on people based on their religion or national origin.

In Hawaii, which is alone in its lawsuit, the U.S. government asked a federal court Monday to deny the state’s request to temporarily block the ban from going into effect.

A judge will hear arguments Wednesday, with the heavily Democratic state claiming the new order will harm its Muslim population, tourism and foreign students. Ismail Elshikh, a plaintiff in Hawaii’s challenge, said the ban will prevent his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting.

The government says Hawaii’s allegations that the ban will negatively affect tourism and universities are pure speculation. It also says neither Elshikh nor his mother-in-law have been harmed because she has not been denied a waiver for a visa to visit the United States.

Mr. Trump’s revised ban applies to Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. Unlike the original order, it says people with visas won’t be affected and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities.

Ferguson acknowledged the changes to the order but said it still “bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries,” including relatives of U.S. citizens and students who have been admitted to state universities and people who might seek work at schools and businesses.

“This court’s original injunction protected these individuals and institutions,” Washington state’s new court filing said.

It said the federal government can’t enforce the new travel ban unless it asks Judge Robart to modify his original restraining order.

“Until they do so, they cannot escape the injunction and continue their illegal conduct,” the filing said.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said last week that the administration believes the revised travel ban will stand up to legal scrutiny.</s>A new appeal to the judge that Trump attacked on Twitter

Washington state has again sued Donald Trump, asking the judge who blocked the president’s first travel ban targeting immigrants and visitors from several Muslim-majority countries to extend his restraining order to the revised order.

The new lawsuit — filed on Monday by Washington’s attorney general and joined by prosecutors representing California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon — asks for U.S. District Judge James Robart to stop the new travel ban from taking effect on Thursday.

The joint suit comes just days after Hawaii levied the first legal challenge to the new order.

Trump issued the latest rule on March 6, adding some provisions to make it harder to challenge in court than the original. But the Monday lawsuit alleges that the new provisions, like the first ones, “will cause severe and immediate harms to the States, including our residents, our colleges and universities, our healthcare providers, and our businesses.”

Robart — whom Trump bashed on Twitter for his ruling against the first executive order — gave the government a Tuesday deadline to respond to the new lawsuit. The Justice Department has not yet commented.

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. It’s not clear when a hearing may take place.

Trump signed his first executive order travel ban, which was touted as an anti-terrorism measure, on Jan. 27. It blocked citizens from seven Muslim majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen — from entering the country for 90 days. It also shuttered the U.S.’s refugee program by banning asylum-seekers from Syria indefinitely and refugees from every other country for 120 days.

The ban, issued on a Friday afternoon, caused a weekend of chaos and confusion at the nation’s airports. Travelers from the seven newly banned countries were detained when they landed; some were green card holders, meaning that, while they hold passports from foreign countries, they had legal status to work and live in the U.S. Meanwhile, masses of protestors gathered outside many airports.

At least two dozen lawsuits were filed against that first travel ban. On Feb. 3, Robart acted on one of those suits, issuing a nationwide restraining order prohibiting federal agents from enforcing the ban. When Trump administration challenged the judge’s decision, an appeals court refused to reinstate the ban.

The Trump administration unveiled its second executive order travel ban on March 6.

Still billed as a national security measure, the new order removed Iraq from the ban list (the White House cited the nation’s key role in helping the U.S. fight the militant group ISIS) and included a special provision to exempt green card holders from the ban. It retained the refugee ban, but did not specify that Syrians would be kept out for longer; instead, all refugees are barred from the U.S. indefinitely.

Legal experts said that the new order would be harder to challenge in court, since it ensures that legal U.S. residents won’t be affected.

A legal battle in Hawaii after a U.S. attorney purge

The new Monday lawsuit comes after an abrupt nationwide purge of U.S. attorneys — lawyers who represent the government in court — who were appointed by Barack Obama.

On Friday, the Trump administration asked the 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by the former president to resign, including Robert Capers, who served as the attorney for Eastern District of New York. Capers’ office had been tasked with defending Trump’s first travel ban in a New York court — an assignment he punted down to his civil division chief.

The ousted U.S. attorneys’ deputies are now filling in as the Trump administration searches for replacements, so more junior prosecutors may continue to be the ones defending the second executive order.

While the Washington state lawsuit sits in legal limbo awaiting a responses from the government, the Hawaiian suit is progressing forward. The state sued last week, arguing that the ban harms its tourism industry, foreign students studying at Hawaiian universities, and its Muslim population.

The Justice Department responded to Hawaii’s suit on Monday, defending the ban by saying that the president has the power to “restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest” and again billing it as a terrorism-fighting maneuver.

As anticipated, the Trump administration argued that since the new order specifically protects legal U.S. residents, it doesn’t have the harmful effects that Hawaii claims it does.

“The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions,” the Department of Justice’s motion said.

A federal judge in Honolulu is set to hear arguments from both the government and the state of Hawaii on Wednesday. The judge can choose to block the executive order — like Seattle judge Robart did for the first ban — or allow it to take effect.</s>President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban is “substantially different” from the original and a judge shouldn’t apply a previous restraining order to the new version, federal lawyers said in a court filing. Justice Department lawyers filed the documents in US District Court in Seattle, two days before the executive order is set to go into effect. Washington and several other states are trying to block the revised ban that affects six mostly Muslim nations, saying it’s unconstitutional.

Government lawyers say the new version removed provisions that “purportedly drew religious distinctions â€” erasing any doubt that national security, not religion, is the focus.”

They made their filings with Judge James Robart, who blocked the original ban last month. Washington state wants him to apply that decision to the new order.

Trump’s revised ban applies to Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the US refugee program.

Unlike the original order, it says people with visas won’t be affected and removes language that would have given priority to religious minorities for entry to the US Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, joined in his lawsuit by heavily Democratic California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon, said the revised ban is still flawed and harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based

Microsoft and Amazon that rely on foreign workers. Lawyers for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities filed documents Tuesday with the court supporting Washington state’s lawsuit.

A hearing in a separate lawsuit by Hawaii is scheduled for Wednesday.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App now</s>President Trump's second attempt at a temporary travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries goes into effect Thursday — and faces a second round of legal attempts to thwart it.

States from Hawaii to Washington, immigration advocacy groups and private residents have filed lawsuits to block the new ban from going into effect, as happened when Trump issued his first travel ban in late January.

Federal judges will weigh the president's powers to secure the nation from terrorists against the constitutional rights of foreigners in the United States.

Trump's first ban barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and Syrian citizens indefinitely.

Trump's second ban, signed March 6, temporarily bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. Iraq was removed from the list after its government agreed to enhanced screening of its citizens, and the indefinite ban on Syrians was dropped.

The White House says the ban has been tailored to survive legal scrutiny. In court filings, the Department of Justice argues that the president has broad powers to protect the nation.

Critics see the same illegal moves, dubbing the new order "Muslim Ban 2.0." Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, said the latest order "discriminates on the basis of religion" and "will bring significant hardship to many people inside and outside the country."

The largest legal assault is a lawsuit filed by Washington state and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon. They argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors who can work and study at state universities, reducing tourism from the Middle East and curbing employment from those countries.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who halted Trump's first ban, is hearing this lawsuit, too. He gave government lawyers until Tuesday night to file a response. Robart could issue an order immediately after that, or schedule a hearing later this week.

Hawaii has filed its own lawsuit with similar claims that the ban will hurt tourism and residents who have relatives living in the targeted countries. Hawaii is joined by a Muslim imam who claims his family and members of his mosque will be hurt by the ban. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

Refugee assistance and civil rights groups are challenging the ban in a federal court in Maryland. They are asking a judge to halt the order along with Trump's move to lower the total number of refugees accepted by the U.S. this year from 110,000 to 50,000. Several private Maryland residents with family in the targeted countries are part of that lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang has scheduled a Wednesday hearing.

Federal judges struck down the first order mainly because it banned foreigners who already had legal permanent residence (known as a green card) or valid visas to enter the country.

Some judges expressed concern about religious discrimination, citing Trump's campaign calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." They also pointed to a section of the original order that gave immigration preference to religious minorities, including Christians.

The new order removed that section, but legal challenges contend the intent remains and is unconstitutional religious discrimination. Hawaii's suit cites comments by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, that the new ban has "the same basic policy outcome."

Government attorneys counter that the new order has been stripped of any mention of religion, and urge the judge to focus instead on the national security threat the U.S. faces from terrorists living in the targeted countries.

"Its text and purpose are explicitly religion-neutral, and it no longer grants any preference for victims of religious persecution," they wrote in the Hawaii case.

© Gannett Co., Inc. 2017. All Rights Reserved</s>President Trump's second attempt at a temporary travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries goes into effect Thursday — and faces a second round of legal attempts to thwart it.

States from Hawaii to Washington, immigration advocacy groups and private residents have filed lawsuits to block the new ban from going into effect, as happened when Trump issued his first travel ban in late January.

Federal judges will weigh the president's powers to secure the nation from terrorists against the constitutional rights of foreigners in the United States.

Trump's first ban barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and Syrian citizens indefinitely.

Trump's second ban, signed March 6, temporarily bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. Iraq was removed from the list after its government agreed to enhanced screening of its citizens, and the indefinite ban on Syrians was dropped.

The White House says the ban has been tailored to survive legal scrutiny. In court filings, the Department of Justice argues that the president has broad powers to protect the nation.

Critics see the same illegal moves, dubbing the new order "Muslim Ban 2.0." Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, said the latest order "discriminates on the basis of religion" and "will bring significant hardship to many people inside and outside the country."

The largest legal assault is a lawsuit filed by Washington state and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon. They argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors who can work and study at state universities, reducing tourism from the Middle East and curbing employment from those countries.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who halted Trump's first ban, is hearing this lawsuit, too. He gave government lawyers until Tuesday night to file a response. Robart could issue an order immediately after that, or schedule a hearing later this week.

Hawaii has filed its own lawsuit with similar claims that the ban will hurt tourism and residents who have relatives living in the targeted countries. Hawaii is joined by a Muslim imam who claims his family and members of his mosque will be hurt by the ban. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

Refugee assistance and civil rights groups are challenging the ban in a federal court in Maryland. They are asking a judge to halt the order along with Trump's move to lower the total number of refugees accepted by the U.S. this year from 110,000 to 50,000. Several private Maryland residents with family in the targeted countries are part of that lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang has scheduled a Wednesday hearing.

Federal judges struck down the first order mainly because it banned foreigners who already had legal permanent residence (known as a green card) or valid visas to enter the country.

Some judges expressed concern about religious discrimination, citing Trump's campaign calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." They also pointed to a section of the original order that gave immigration preference to religious minorities, including Christians.

The new order removed that section, but legal challenges contend the intent remains and is unconstitutional religious discrimination. Hawaii's suit cites comments by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, that the new ban has "the same basic policy outcome."

Government attorneys counter that the new order has been stripped of any mention of religion, and urge the judge to focus instead on the national security threat the U.S. faces from terrorists living in the targeted countries.

"Its text and purpose are explicitly religion-neutral, and it no longer grants any preference for victims of religious persecution," they wrote in the Hawaii case.

© Gannett Co., Inc. 2017. All Rights Reserved</s>A new appeal to the judge that President Trump attacked on Twitter

Washington state has again sued President Donald Trump, asking the judge who blocked the president’s first travel ban targeting immigrants and visitors from several Muslim-majority countries to extend his restraining order to the revised order.

The new lawsuit — filed on Monday by Washington’s attorney general and joined by prosecutors representing California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon — asks for U.S. District Judge James Robart to stop the new travel ban from taking effect on Thursday.

The joint suit comes just days after Hawaii levied the first legal challenge to the new order.

President Trump issued the latest rule on March 6, adding some provisions to make it harder to challenge in court than the original. But the Monday lawsuit alleges that the new provisions, like the first ones, “will cause severe and immediate harms to the States, including our residents, our colleges and universities, our healthcare providers, and our businesses.”

Robart — whom President Trump bashed on Twitter for his ruling against the first executive order — gave the government a Tuesday deadline to respond to the new lawsuit. The Justice Department has not yet commented.

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. It’s not clear when a hearing may take place.

President Trump signed his first executive order travel ban, which was touted as an anti-terrorism measure, on Jan. 27. It blocked citizens from seven Muslim majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen — from entering the country for 90 days. It also shuttered the U.S.’s refugee program by banning asylum-seekers from Syria indefinitely and refugees from every other country for 120 days.

The ban, issued on a Friday afternoon, caused a weekend of chaos and confusion at the nation’s airports. Travelers from the seven newly banned countries were detained when they landed; some were green card holders, meaning that, while they hold passports from foreign countries, they had legal status to work and live in the U.S. Meanwhile, masses of protestors gathered outside many airports.

At least two dozen lawsuits were filed against that first travel ban. On Feb. 3, Robart acted on one of those suits, issuing a nationwide restraining order prohibiting federal agents from enforcing the ban. When President Trump administration challenged the judge’s decision, an appeals court refused to reinstate the ban.

The Trump administration unveiled its second executive order travel ban on March 6.

Still billed as a national security measure, the new order removed Iraq from the ban list (the White House cited the nation’s key role in helping the U.S. fight the militant group ISIS) and included a special provision to exempt green card holders from the ban. It retained the refugee ban, but did not specify that Syrians would be kept out for longer; instead, all refugees are barred from the U.S. indefinitely.

Legal experts said that the new order would be harder to challenge in court, since it ensures that legal U.S. residents won’t be affected.

A legal battle in Hawaii after a U.S. attorney purge

The new Monday lawsuit comes after an abrupt nationwide purge of U.S. attorneys — lawyers who represent the government in court — who were appointed by Barack Obama.

On Friday, the Trump administration asked the 46 U.S. attorneys appointed by the former president to resign, including Robert Capers, who served as the attorney for Eastern District of New York. Capers’ office had been tasked with defending President Trump’s first travel ban in a New York court — an assignment he punted down to his civil division chief.

The ousted U.S. attorneys’ deputies are now filling in as the Trump administration searches for replacements, so more junior prosecutors may continue to be the ones defending the second executive order.

While the Washington state lawsuit sits in legal limbo awaiting a responses from the government, the Hawaiian suit is progressing forward. The state sued last week, arguing that the ban harms its tourism industry, foreign students studying at Hawaiian universities, and its Muslim population.

The Justice Department responded to Hawaii’s suit on Monday, defending the ban by saying that the president has the power to “restrict or suspend entry of any class of aliens when in the national interest” and again billing it as a terrorism-fighting maneuver.

As anticipated, the Trump administration argued that since the new order specifically protects legal U.S. residents, it doesn’t have the harmful effects that Hawaii claims it does.

“The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions,” the Department of Justice’s motion said.

A federal judge in Honolulu is set to hear arguments from both the government and the state of Hawaii on Wednesday. The judge can choose to block the executive order — like Seattle judge Robart did for the first ban — or allow it to take effect.</s>President Trump's second attempt at a temporary travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries goes into effect Thursday — and faces a second round of legal attempts to thwart it.

States from Hawaii to Washington, immigration advocacy groups and private residents have filed lawsuits to block the new ban from going into effect, as happened when Trump issued his first travel ban in late January.

Federal judges will weigh the president's powers to secure the nation from terrorists against the constitutional rights of foreigners in the United States.

Trump's first ban barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and Syrian citizens indefinitely.

Trump's second ban, signed March 6, temporarily bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. Iraq was removed from the list after its government agreed to enhanced screening of its citizens, and the indefinite ban on Syrians was dropped.

The White House says the ban has been tailored to survive legal scrutiny. In court filings, the Department of Justice argues that the president has broad powers to protect the nation.

Critics see the same illegal moves, dubbing the new order "Muslim Ban 2.0." Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, said the latest order "discriminates on the basis of religion" and "will bring significant hardship to many people inside and outside the country."

The largest legal assault is a lawsuit filed by Washington state and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon. They argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors who can work and study at state universities, reducing tourism from the Middle East and curbing employment from those countries.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who halted Trump's first ban, is hearing this lawsuit, too. He gave government lawyers until Tuesday night to file a response. Robart could issue an order immediately after that, or schedule a hearing later this week.

Hawaii has filed its own lawsuit with similar claims that the ban will hurt tourism and residents who have relatives living in the targeted countries. Hawaii is joined by a Muslim imam who claims his family and members of his mosque will be hurt by the ban. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

Refugee assistance and civil rights groups are challenging the ban in a federal court in Maryland. They are asking a judge to halt the order along with Trump's move to lower the total number of refugees accepted by the U.S. this year from 110,000 to 50,000. Several private Maryland residents with family in the targeted countries are part of that lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang has scheduled a Wednesday hearing.

Federal judges struck down the first order mainly because it banned foreigners who already had legal permanent residence (known as a green card) or valid visas to enter the country.

Some judges expressed concern about religious discrimination, citing Trump's campaign calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." They also pointed to a section of the original order that gave immigration preference to religious minorities, including Christians.

The new order removed that section, but legal challenges contend the intent remains and is unconstitutional religious discrimination. Hawaii's suit cites comments by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, that the new ban has "the same basic policy outcome."

Government attorneys counter that the new order has been stripped of any mention of religion, and urge the judge to focus instead on the national security threat the U.S. faces from terrorists living in the targeted countries.

"Its text and purpose are explicitly religion-neutral, and it no longer grants any preference for victims of religious persecution," they wrote in the Hawaii case.

© Gannett Co., Inc. 2017. All Rights Reserved</s>California on Monday joined Washington state’s growing effort to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim nations as Washington’s attorney general sought a hearing before a federal judge to try to prevent the order from taking effect this week.

In a new complaint filed in U.S. District Court Monday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson asked for a hearing with the judge based in Seattle on Tuesday, two days before the revised travel ban is scheduled to begin.

He said the new travel ban is unconstitutional and harms state residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies like Microsoft and Amazon that rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon joined Washington in the legal action.

“No one is above the law, not even the President — and I will hold him accountable to the Constitution,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Cutting some illegal aspects of President Trump’s original travel ban does not cure his affront to our Constitution.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the order, despite being changed, represents an attack on people based on their religion or national origin.

Ferguson filed the new court documents after a federal judge last week said he wouldn’t immediately rule on whether his restraining order against the old ban applies to the new Trump executive order. U.S. District Judge James Robart on Friday asked for new motions or a complaint.

Washington was the first state to sue over the original ban, which resulted in Robart halting its implementation around the country.

Trump’s revised ban blocks new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim countries, including Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen.

It also temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. Unlike the original order, the new one says current visa holders won’t be affected, and it removes language that would give priority to religious minorities.

Ferguson acknowledged the changes to the order, but said the revised ban still “bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries,” including relatives of U.S. citizens and students who have been admitted to state universities and people who might seek work at schools and businesses.

“This Court’s original injunction protected these individuals and institutions,” Washington’s new court filing said. Washington state said the federal government can’t enforce the new travel ban unless it asks Robart to modify his original temporary restraining order.

“Until they do so, they cannot escape the injunction and continue their illegal conduct,” the filing said.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said last week that the administration believed the revised travel ban will stand up to legal scrutiny.</s>President Trump's second attempt at a temporary travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries goes into effect Thursday — and faces a second round of legal attempts to thwart it.

States from Hawaii to Washington, immigration advocacy groups and private residents have filed lawsuits to block the new ban from going into effect, as happened when Trump issued his first travel ban in late January.

Federal judges will weigh the president's powers to secure the nation from terrorists against the constitutional rights of foreigners in the United States.

Trump's first ban barred citizens of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and Syrian citizens indefinitely.

Trump's second ban, signed March 6, temporarily bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. Iraq was removed from the list after its government agreed to enhanced screening of its citizens, and the indefinite ban on Syrians was dropped.

The White House says the ban has been tailored to survive legal scrutiny. In court filings, the Department of Justice argues that the president has broad powers to protect the nation.

Critics see the same illegal moves, dubbing the new order "Muslim Ban 2.0." Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, said the latest order "discriminates on the basis of religion" and "will bring significant hardship to many people inside and outside the country."

The largest legal assault is a lawsuit filed by Washington state and joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon. They argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors who can work and study at state universities, reducing tourism from the Middle East and curbing employment from those countries.

U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who halted Trump's first ban, is hearing this lawsuit, too. He gave government lawyers until Tuesday night to file a response. Robart could issue an order immediately after that, or schedule a hearing later this week.

Hawaii has filed its own lawsuit with similar claims that the ban will hurt tourism and residents who have relatives living in the targeted countries. Hawaii is joined by a Muslim imam who claims his family and members of his mosque will be hurt by the ban. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

Refugee assistance and civil rights groups are challenging the ban in a federal court in Maryland. They are asking a judge to halt the order along with Trump's move to lower the total number of refugees accepted by the U.S. this year from 110,000 to 50,000. Several private Maryland residents with family in the targeted countries are part of that lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang has scheduled a Wednesday hearing.

Federal judges struck down the first order mainly because it banned foreigners who already had legal permanent residence (known as a green card) or valid visas to enter the country.

Some judges expressed concern about religious discrimination, citing Trump's campaign calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." They also pointed to a section of the original order that gave immigration preference to religious minorities, including Christians.

The new order removed that section, but legal challenges contend the intent remains and is unconstitutional religious discrimination. Hawaii's suit cites comments by Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, that the new ban has "the same basic policy outcome."

Government attorneys counter that the new order has been stripped of any mention of religion, and urge the judge to focus instead on the national security threat the U.S. faces from terrorists living in the targeted countries.

"Its text and purpose are explicitly religion-neutral, and it no longer grants any preference for victims of religious persecution," they wrote in the Hawaii case.

© Gannett Co., Inc. 2017. All Rights Reserved
The state of Washington, joined by the states of California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon, asks a federal judge to stop, on constitutional grounds, the revised federal immigration/refugee rules from taking effect on Thursday, March 16. The state of Hawaii has filed a separate, similar request.