GREENBELT, Md. ― Lawyers for the Department of Justice and for refugee resettlement organizations, academics and immigrants who claim they are affected by President Donald Trump’s new and improved travel ban are facing off in federal court ― in a clash that could once again keep the administration’s travel restrictions on a number of Muslim-majority countries from being enforced on the eve of their effective date.
A Maryland hearing before U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang is one of at least three scheduled for Wednesday over Trump’s second attempt at a travel ban, which will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on Thursday ― unless it is blocked in the courts.
The president signed the travel ban on March 6, following up on a promise to re-work a previous executive order that a court in Seattle stopped in early February ― after a chaotic rollout that led to stranded travelers, protests and dozens of lawsuits nationwide. The new ban, like the previous one, suspends the refugee resettlement program for 120 days and bars certain citizens of several Muslim-majority nations ― Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ― from entering the U.S.
Unlike the first order, the new ban does not apply to Iraqis or to current visa-holders and does not single out Syrian refugees for indefinite exclusion.
Opponents of the ban argue that the scaled-back executive order is simply the same “Muslim ban” that Trump promised on the campaign trail ― just repackaged to pass constitutional scrutiny.
“The only way not to have an unconstitutional policy in this area is not to have a Muslim ban, it’s as simple as that,” Cecillia Wang, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told reporters Tuesday.
The lawsuit that Chuang is considering on Wednesday alleges that Trump’s executive order violates federal law and the Constitution ― including its guarantees of equal protection and freedom from religious discrimination. The challenge also alleges that the president, under the Refugee Act of 1980, cannot downsize the number of refugees to be admitted in the middle of a fiscal year.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, ACLU of Maryland and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of several refugees and nationals from the targeted countries, as well as two refugee-focused organizations, the International Refugee Assistance Project and HIAS. Another plaintiff is the Middle Eastern Studies Association, which says the travel ban affects scholars and students who are associated with it and are worried about traveling abroad for fear of being stranded.
Other organizations and states are making their own efforts to halt the new order before it goes into effect. In Honolulu, a federal judge will hear arguments Wednesday afternoon over the ban, which the state of Hawaii contends harms tourism, and visitors and activities that are unique to the state. Separately, the states of Washington and Minnesota, which spearheaded the suit that led to the freeze of the first executive order, asked U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle to apply the same temporary restraining order he issued in February to the new ban.
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have joined the two states in the legal effort.
A ruling in one or all three of these challenges is expected later on Wednesday, and Trump could very well weigh in afterward in the way he often does:
Elise Foley reported from Greenbelt, Maryland. Cristian Farias and Willa Frej reported from New York.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.