The state of Washington is set to apply to a federal judge to block President Trumps devised travel ban. Hawaii is also challenging the new executive order. Washington state’s attorney general Bob Ferguson said that the devised travel ban still contains legal breaches. He described the new order as a Muslim ban. Both New York and Oregon have indicated readiness to challenge the executive order in the court. Minnesota is also challenging President Trump’s executive actions.

The original ban

The first travel ban was blocked by a federal Judge James Robart who issued a temporary restraining order on February 3, which halted the implementation of the original travel ban on seven countries.

President Donald Trump signed a new executive order banning citizens from six Muslim countries from traveling to the United States for 90 days on Monday. The order prohibits all refugees for 120 days, but green card holders and those with a valid visa were exempted from the new travel ban.

The lawsuit

Ferguson argued that there still constitutional lapses with fundamental provisions of the new executive order. Instead of seven nations, it’s now six-nation travel ban, and both are identical, he added. The Washington state attorney further stated said that the temporary restraining order issued by Robart blocking the initial ban should also halt the implementation of the new ban as well. He described that ban as discrimination against Muslims in which Trump had clearly stated during the campaign to the presidential election.

Hawaii has also challenged the new executive order. The case is slated to come up on March 16, in which a federal judge will rule on it.

White House defense

The White House on Thursday said that the new executive order was in line with federal law. According to Spicer, the White House is confident that the new executive order would scale due to a well-crafted plan.

On Monday, the Department of Justice filed a notice with James Robart and said that the new executive order is in line with Robart’s earlier ruling halting implementation of the original ban.