[ad_1]
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
WASHINGTON — On Tuesday evening, the Trump administration's lawyers argued to the federal judge who previously halted enforcement of the original refugee and travel ban that the new executive order, singed by President Trump on March 6, should not be subject to the prior injunction.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson argued that the Feb. 3 injunction against the original executive order should apply to the two provisions from the original ban that were reinstituted, albeit with some changes, in the new executive order, which is due to go into effect on Thursday.
“Plaintiffs are wrong: this Court’s order, by its plain terms, does not apply to the New Executive Order,” Justice Department lawyers argue in a filing before US District Judge James Robart. “And courts routinely hold that relief granted as to prior policies does not extend to new policies that are substantially different.”
The filing comes on the eve of two scheduled hearings in other cases challenging the new executive order — one in federal court in Hawaii, brought by the state, and one in federal court in Maryland, brought by nonprofit organizations.
Robart has said that if a hearing is necessary in Washington's case, he would not schedule it before Wednesday. He has not, as of yet, scheduled any hearing in the case.
In another case before Robart challenging the travel portion of the ban — specifically focused on people approved for immigrant visas — he has scheduled a hearing for 2 p.m. Pacific Time (5 p.m. Eastern Time) Wednesday on the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order. The Justice Department on Tuesday evening also filed its opposition in this case, Ali v. Trump.
[ad_2]
