The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] on Monday outlined [memorandum, PDF] its legal defense in support of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel and immigration. This came after Hawaii filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in February arguing [WP report] that the revised order would cause serious business and constitutional concerns if implemented. The DOJ is arguing [ABA Journal report] that Hawaii is not entitled to a restraining order citing that Hawaii’s claims are “mere speculation.” Furthermore, the revised order’s text and purpose are “religion-neutral” thereby hindering arguments of religious animus against Muslims. The DOJ also argues that unlike the previous order, emergency relief is not required as waivers are available and nobody has been turned away due to the order yet. A hearing in the matter is scheduled for Wednesday.
Trump’s revised travel ban has faced continued legal challenges even in the face of corrections to the order. Also on Monday the California Attorney General announced [JURIST report] that California would be joining Washington and Minnesota in their lawsuit against the revised travel ban. Last week a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a temporary restraining order [JURIST report] against Trump’s revised immigration ban to a Syrian asylum seeker and his family. The order is limited to the one man and his family and will remain in effect only until the asylum request for his wife and child can be resolved. The revised immigration ban removed Iraq from its list of countries, implemented a waiver system, and used language that is religion neutral. The ban still temporarily blocks immigrants from six countries and decreases the amount of refugees being admitted into the country.