This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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 http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/trump-travel-ban-hawaii.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Hawaii Sues to Block Trump Travel Ban; First Challenge to Order Hawaii Sues to Block Trump Travel Ban; First Challenge to Order
(about 3 hours later)
President Trump’s revised executive order barring citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from traveling to the United States confronted its first legal challenge late Tuesday, the day after it was signed, when lawyers for the State of Hawaii asked a federal judge to block it temporarily. President Trump’s revised executive order barring citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from traveling to the United States confronted its first legal challenge late Tuesday, the day after it was signed, when the State of Hawaii asked a federal judge to block it temporarily.
The court filing from the office of the attorney general of Hawaii, Doug Chin, a Democrat, may signal a wave of legal assaults on Mr. Trump’s second take on the travel ban, which preserves the fundamentals of the first while lifting restrictions on Iraqis, green card holders and lawful permanent residents, and people who are already approved to enter the United States.The court filing from the office of the attorney general of Hawaii, Doug Chin, a Democrat, may signal a wave of legal assaults on Mr. Trump’s second take on the travel ban, which preserves the fundamentals of the first while lifting restrictions on Iraqis, green card holders and lawful permanent residents, and people who are already approved to enter the United States.
The White House revised the order with an eye toward avoiding the chaos that rippled through airports after the first version was signed in late January. It also sought to patch up its legal vulnerabilities, which became apparent after a federal judge in Washington State issued a nationwide injunction against the travel ban. The White House revised the order with an eye toward avoiding the chaos that rippled through airports after the first version was signed in late January. It also sought to patch up the first executive order’s legal vulnerabilities, which became apparent after a federal judge in Washington State issued a nationwide injunction against the travel ban.
In the latest legal filing, lawyers for the state argued that “the new executive order is resulting in the establishment of religion in the State of Hawaii contrary to its state Constitution.” Lawyers for Hawaii, which is also being represented by the law firm Hogan Lovells, argue that the administration’s changes are not much of an improvement. The latest filing noted that one of Mr. Trump’s top aides told Fox News in late February that while the new directive would address the legal issues that had arisen around the ban, “you’re still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country.”
In addition, the state says, the ban “is inflicting immediate damage to Hawaii’s economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state’s citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society.” Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration who heads the Hogan Lovells team, said Tuesday, “We absolutely agree with the president’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, who said this executive order is the same as the last one.” Mr. Katyal said, “The same legal problems that infected the first one infect version 2.0.”
It also said Hawaiians and other Americans would be cut off from immediate family members living in the six countries affected by the ban. Still, some legal specialists say the revisions may help the administration dodge the legal pitfalls of the initial ban.
Hawaii, which is also being represented by the law firm Hogan Lovells, had been one of several states, including New York, Massachusetts and Washington, fighting the first ban in court. The states argued that the ban, which also restricted the nation’s refugee program, would damage individuals and businesses in their states and that it discriminated against Muslims. In the court papers, lawyers for the state argued that the new order discriminates against Muslims, even if it affects fewer people than the previous one.
After a federal appeals court upheld the Washington State judge’s nationwide restraining order in early February, the Federal District Court in Hawaii paused the proceedings in Hawaii’s lawsuit. “Given that the new executive order began life as a ‘Muslim ban,’ its implementation also means that the state will be forced to tolerate a policy that disfavors one religion,” the lawyers wrote. They listed 15 separate instances in which Mr. Trump or his advisers tied the travel restrictions to Muslims or Islam.
In addition, the state said, the ban “is inflicting immediate damage to Hawaii’s economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state’s citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society.”
It also said Hawaiians and other Americans would be cut off from family members living in the six countries affected by the ban. One plaintiff in the lawsuit is Ismail Elshikh, imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii and an American citizen of Egyptian descent, whose Syrian mother-in-law will most likely be barred from visiting the family in Hawaii.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment on Wednesday.
Hawaii was one of 18 states, including New York, Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington, fighting the first ban in court. The states argued that the ban, which also restricted the nation’s refugee program, was damaging individuals and businesses in their states and that it discriminated against Muslims.
After a federal appeals court upheld the Washington State judge’s nationwide restraining order in early February, the proceeding in Federal District Court in Hawaii were paused.
But lawyers for Hawaii now argue that the new travel ban, which is to go into effect on March 16, effectively supplants the previous one and the legal action surrounding it. Tuesday’s filing asked the federal court to unfreeze the Hawaii case, allowing a new legal challenge to go forward.But lawyers for Hawaii now argue that the new travel ban, which is to go into effect on March 16, effectively supplants the previous one and the legal action surrounding it. Tuesday’s filing asked the federal court to unfreeze the Hawaii case, allowing a new legal challenge to go forward.