Maryland to join states challenging revised Trump travel ban

  • Maryland to join states challenging revised Trump travel ban

Maryland to join states challenging revised Trump travel ban

Saying the president is not above the law, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed an amended complaint in his lawsuit challenging President Trump's travel ban, saying Trump's order is illegal and unconstitutional.

Other states that participated in the first round of legal action - including Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and IL - may not be far behind. 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.

The White House says the ban has been tailored to survive legal scrutiny.

Federal judge in Wisconsin blocks impact on Syrian family as other courts mull broader relief.

The second travel ban is more narrowly written than the first; six of the seven original Muslim-majority countries are included. The new order is a direct revision of the initial one that was struck down early last month by the Ninth Circuit after a sloppy implementation and lack of certainty among federal agencies led to chaos at airports.

Washington's renewed lawsuit has been joined by Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, New York, and California, and attorneys general in MA have also said they plan to join.

Instead he asked the government to file its response by the close of business on Tuesday.

They also said the executive order “does not convey any religious message” and would affect nations with less than 9 percent of the worlds Muslim population.

Washington and Hawaii say the order is an effort to carry out the Muslim ban he promised during his campaign and is a violation of the First Amendment, which bars the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion.

Chin also calls attention to the plight of state residents - such as Ismail Elshikh, a naturalized US citizen who is the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii.

U.S. District Judge James Robart, who issued a restraining order on the first ban, declined to extend that order to cover the second.

Refugee assistance and civil rights groups are challenging the ban in a federal court in Maryland.

The refugee family's case will continue with another hearing on March 21, but they may be able to reunite by that time.

But the judge cited procedural reasons for not doing so. However, it removes a provision that exempted religious minorities.

A federal judge in Madison acknowledged some "important differences" between the original executive order and the new one, but ultimately concluded this particular Syrian family faces "a significant risk of irreparable harm" given "the daily threats to the lives plaintiff's wife and child remaining in Aleppo, Syria". Miller went on to say, "fundamentally you are still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country".

The suit alleges that the new executive order violates the constitutional protection of freedom of religion in that it is "intended and created to target and discriminate against Muslims, and it does just that in operation".

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