Toronto - If the Trump administration had hopes that its revised travel ban would avoid the same scrutiny as the original order, there are now six states happy to prove otherwise, according to CNN.
Toronto – If the Trump administration had hopes that its revised travel ban would avoid the same scrutiny as the original order, there are now six states happy to prove otherwise, according to CNN.
Washington state attorney general, Bon Ferguson, submitted a court filing Thursday evening, stating the intent of both Washington state and Minnesota, the two states involved in the original lawsuit, to pursue a block on this new version as well. They’re arguing that the intent of the new order, signed by President Trump on Monday, is, by the White House’s own admission, “no different than the first time around.”
Press secretary, Sean Spicer, confirmed in a press briefing that “the principles of the executive order remain the same.” He went on to explain that the new order addressed only “very technical issues” and achieves “the same basic policy outcome.”
While lawyers submitting the new documents concede changes were made to the new ban, they assert that simply changing the ban from seven nations to six does not go far enough. Changes made to the new travel ban also include the exclusion of anyone holding a valid green card or visa. “The President cannot unilaterally reinstate these provisions just by repackaging them.”
Washington state AG, Bob Ferguson made it clear that the documents filed Thursday evening do not represent a new lawsuit. “… We’re saying that underlying injunction is still under effect on core provisions (of the executive order).” He continued his remarks saying, “The language is virtually identical… This is still a Muslim ban.”
According to the new papers filed, “President Trump bears the burden of showing that the factual or legal background has changed significantly enough to warrant a modification of this court inunction. He has not met and cannot meet this burden.”
Adding momentum to the lawsuit, already challenged by the state of Hawaii, is the addition of Massachusetts, New York and Oregon to the growing list of states wanting to argue its legality. A federal judge has agreed to hear arguments on March 15, one day before the new order is set to take effect.
