President Trump’s travel ban is scheduled to take effect on Thursday. However, the revised executive order on refugees and migrants must survive some serious legal challenges.
The Courts will hear arguments in regards to these challenges just hours before it’s supposed to be implemented. Many are expecting the upcoming weeks to bring about even more challenges to the revised executive order.
Three hearings are scheduled for Wednesday from various plaintiffs who are against the travel ban. Some of these plaintiffs include advocacy groups and blue state attorneys general. They’re hoping their arguments cause the Courts to put a stop to parts of the revised order before its implementation on Thursday.
The Daily Caller reports:
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson asked U.S. District Court Judge James Robart — who issued an order temporarily barring enforcement of the first executive order — to block provisions of the order, provisions which suspend the refugee resettlement program and block travel from six countries with high incidences of terror.
Robart will hear arguments from Ferguson and Department of Justice lawyers Wednesday, before determining whether to block the revised order, which is scheduled to take effect Thursday. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon are backing Washington’s suit.
Washington filed its amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Monday morning.
Government lawyers will defend the order before U.S. District Judge Theordore Chuang Wednesday morning. A coalition of advocacy groups, including the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and HIAS, Inc., have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to block the order in its entirety.
A third hearing will take place in Hawaii Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson. Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin is challenging the same provisions implicated in the Washington litigation. The state has enlisted former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells for support in the challenge.
To prevail in these challenges, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm without a ruling temporarily barring the order, and that they have a strong chance of success when the lawfulness of the order is assessed. They must also demonstrate that they have suffered a tangible injury, called “standing.” Some conservative critics contend the challenges brought by states should be dismissed for lack of standing.
The order was handed something of a defeat Friday, when U.S. District Judge William Conley enjoined the federal government from using it to block the arrival of two Syrian refugees — a mother and her child — who wish to join a relative in the United States. The relative was previously granted asylum in the United States.
Conley’s ruling applies only to this particular case and does not concern the merits of the order. Further argument will take place in the case later this month.