This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/washington-state-trump-revised-travel-ban-injunction

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Washington state seeks to expand travel ban injunction to cover revised order Washington state seeks to expand travel ban injunction to cover revised order
(35 minutes later)
The state of Washington has asked a federal court to extend a national injunction so that it halts Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, as the coalition of Democratic states challenging the president’s controversial order continues to grow.The state of Washington has asked a federal court to extend a national injunction so that it halts Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, as the coalition of Democratic states challenging the president’s controversial order continues to grow.
The motion, filed in a district court in Seattle on Monday morning, argues that core parts of Trump’s new ban essentially reinstate parts of the old order, which was chaotically rolled out by the administration in January and was subsequently blocked with a restraining order by US district court judge James Robart. Robart’s ruling was unanimously upheld by a federal appeals court in February.The motion, filed in a district court in Seattle on Monday morning, argues that core parts of Trump’s new ban essentially reinstate parts of the old order, which was chaotically rolled out by the administration in January and was subsequently blocked with a restraining order by US district court judge James Robart. Robart’s ruling was unanimously upheld by a federal appeals court in February.
Also on Monday, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California announced that she introduced a bill with 36 other Democrats to repeal the travel ban through Congress. Also on Monday, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California announced that she had introduced a bill with 36 other Democrats to repeal the travel ban through Congress.
Trump’s revised order, announced last week, bans visa approvals from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspends the US refugee resettlement program for 120 days but includes new exemptions and removes language that singled out religious minorities and certain nationalities. Robart’s restraining order had prevented Trump from implementing similar tenets of his old order, including suspension of the refugee program and banning entry for individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries.Trump’s revised order, announced last week, bans visa approvals from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspends the US refugee resettlement program for 120 days but includes new exemptions and removes language that singled out religious minorities and certain nationalities. Robart’s restraining order had prevented Trump from implementing similar tenets of his old order, including suspension of the refugee program and banning entry for individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The motion to halt this new order argues that the administration “cannot evade the injunction by announcing that it will continue only some of the illegal policies”, adding that “the Court should reject this attempt to evade its authority and should exercise its broad power to enforce its injunction”. The motion to halt this new order argues that the administration “cannot evade the injunction by announcing that it will continue only some of the illegal policies”, adding that “the court should reject this attempt to evade its authority and should exercise its broad power to enforce its injunction”.
It also points to interviews given by senior administration officials, including the president’s senior adviser Stephen Miller and press secretary Sean Spicer, who have publicly stated that the second order would achieve “the same basic policy outcome” as the first order.It also points to interviews given by senior administration officials, including the president’s senior adviser Stephen Miller and press secretary Sean Spicer, who have publicly stated that the second order would achieve “the same basic policy outcome” as the first order.
The Washington case has become the focal point of resistance to Trump’s revised order with the Democratic states of Minnesota and Oregon already part of the challenge and the states of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and California requesting to join the legal action.The Washington case has become the focal point of resistance to Trump’s revised order with the Democratic states of Minnesota and Oregon already part of the challenge and the states of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and California requesting to join the legal action.
The new motion sets up a prospective last-minute showdown with the federal government by requesting oral arguments in the case be heard on Tuesday, less than 48 hours before the new order is due to go into effect on 16 March. A separate challenge lodged by the state of Hawaii is due to be heard in federal court on Wednesday. The new motion sets up a prospective last-minute showdown with the federal government by requesting oral arguments in the case to be heard on Tuesday, less than 48 hours before the new order is due to go into effect on 16 March. A separate challenge lodged by the state of Hawaii is due to be heard in federal court on Wednesday.
“No one is above the law, not even the President – and I will hold him accountable to the Constitution,” said Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson in a statement issued on Monday. “No one is above the law, not even the president – and I will hold him accountable to the constitution,” said Washington state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, in a statement issued on Monday.
Ferguson had initially announced his request for an extension of the restraining order last week, but was informed by Robart that he would need to make a formal request to the court.Ferguson had initially announced his request for an extension of the restraining order last week, but was informed by Robart that he would need to make a formal request to the court.
The new motion contains dozens of examples of people and institutions from the Democratic states involved who are caught up in Trump’s new ban, including families torn apart by the order, educational institutions that say they will suffer as a result, and local business and religious organizations who will also be affected. The new motion contains dozens of examples of people and institutions from the states involved who are caught up in Trump’s new ban, including families torn apart by the order, educational institutions that say they will suffer as a result, and local business and religious organizations who will also be affected.
“When President Trump issued the first Executive Order, it immediately tore families apart, causing significant stress and financial hardships,” the motion states. “Many families will suffer a similar fate under the second Executive Order. They will be unable to reunite with relatives, receive visits and plan for the future.” “When President Trump issued the first executive order, it immediately tore families apart, causing significant stress and financial hardships,” the motion states. “Many families will suffer a similar fate under the second executive order. They will be unable to reunite with relatives, receive visits and plan for the future.”
Feinstein has not yet revealed the details of her bill to seek repeal of the order. But in January, after Trump’s first order, she introduced two bills in Congress that she said were intended to prevent Trump from blocking types of immigrants unilaterally. Feinstein has not yet revealed the details of her bill to seek repeal of the order. But in January, after Trump’s first order, she introduced two bills in Congress that she said were intended to prevent Trump from blocking entire categories of immigrants unilaterally.