U.S. District Judge James Robart temporarily suspended a controversial executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The Seattle Times reports that the ruling made in a federal court on Friday was a major victory for a lawsuit filed by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Ferguson said. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

The lawsuit, filed on January 30, claims that Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations violates the U.S. Constitution. The nationwide travel ban was put on hold after the State of Minnesota joined the lawsuit requesting a restraining order.

The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, failed to convince the Seattle federal judge that Trump’s executive order has not harmed U.S. citizens. The judge granting the suspension of Trump’s executive order on immigration was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration played down reports that chaos in airports after Trump signed the executive order was as bad as it looked. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the damage was minimal.

“Three hundred and twenty-five thousand people flew into this country from airports and 109 people were affected and slowed down in their travel,” Spicer said. “I understand that is an inconvenience, but at the end of the day that is a small price to pay as opposed to somebody losing their life because a terrorist attack was admitted.”

Multiple reports have emerged contradicting statements made by the Trump administration. It’s unclear exactly how many visas were suspended after Trump signed the controversial executive order, but the number could be as high as 100,000 and as low as 50,000.

The suspension of Trump’s executive order in a federal court was a result of Washington and Minnesota arguing that U.S. citizens have been injured by Trump’s executive order.

Washington and Minnesota aren’t the only two states winning legal battles against the executive order suspending the U.S. refugee program and imposing a travel ban for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.

New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia filed separate lawsuits this week. Each state’s attorney general has the legal power to file broad lawsuits on behalf of their state’s citizens.

Politico reports that a federal court in Virginia on Friday rejected efforts made by the Justice Department to settle a case on behalf of green card holders detained at Dulles Airport.

“It’s obvious that [Trump’s executive order] put hundreds of thousands of people into a state of great discomfort,” U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said. “People are really upset.”

Chicago Tribune reports that Ferguson is calling for provisions to Trump’s executive order to be thrown out.

The biggest unanswered question is, what happens next? Friday’s ruling in Seattle is a major defeat for Trump’s executive order moving forward. The case will likely be appealed by the Trump administration. It also likely the case will ultimately make it to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling against Trump’s executive order a major victory for all Americans.

“This ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for all of us who believe this un-American executive order will not make us safer,” Schumer said.

A visa that was rescinded after Trump’s executive order could potentially be reinstated very soon. The immense legal implications of a federal judge temporarily overturning an executive order signed by the president will no doubt bring clarity to the future of Trump’s travel ban sooner than later. </s> WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Monday laid out its first significant legal defense of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, arguing in a court filing that the harm opponents say it causes is "speculative" and that the president was well within his authority to issue the directive.

Responding to a lawsuit by Hawaii, Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump's new executive order solves any possible legal problems that came with the first one, because it is narrower in scope and outlines a robust list of people who might be exempted.

"Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the sweeping relief they seek," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Opponents of Trump's executive order have asked federal judges in several states to block the administration from enforcing the directive, and two judges have scheduled hearings for Wednesday to hear arguments on the matter. The order -- which suspends the U.S.' refugee program and bars the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- is set to take effect Thursday unless a court intervenes.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selectedimmigration statistics, U.S. border map]

Hawaii was the first state to sue over the directive, arguing that the new executive order, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damages the state's robust tourism industry.

In support of Hawaii's lawsuit, several states, as well as Washington, D.C., filed documents in federal court Monday saying they want to collectively file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief.

The states are Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

A federal judge in Honolulu is to hear the motion Wednesday.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

Hawaii's lawyers pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the economic harm alleged by the state was "mere speculation" and that Elshikh's mother-in-law had no reason to sue because she had not been denied a waiver to enter the country. The new executive order, unlike the old, spelled out a list of people who might be granted exemptions, including those seeking to visit or live with family in the United States.

"The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "Among other things, therefore, plaintiffs cannot show that any individual whom they seek to protect is in imminent risk of being denied entry due to the Order."

The state will have to convince a judge that Trump's ban is likely to ultimately be found unconstitutional and that it will impose immediate, irreparable harm unless it is stopped. A hearing in the case is Wednesday afternoon.

Federal judges in Washington state and Maryland were also considering separate challenges to the new ban, and either could pre-empt the need for action in Hawaii. A hearing in the Maryland case is Wednesday morning, and Washington on Monday formally asked a judge to enforce his freeze of the previous ban on the new one and to schedule a hearing for today.

"While the new section differs from the original by excluding Iraqis, lawful permanent residents, and visa-holders, it bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries, including: relatives of U.S. citizens, students who have been admitted to state universities, prospective employees of state universities and private businesses, and many others," lawyers for Washington wrote. "This Court's original injunction protected these individuals and institutions, and the Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants' request to narrow the injunction to exclude them."

The administration has argued that the ban is necessary for national security reasons, though many diplomatic and national security professionals have said they disagree with that assessment and that the new ban would probably not have kept out anyone responsible for a fatal terrorist attack since 2001.

In their filing, Justice Department lawyers pointed to 300 people who entered the United States as refugees and are under investigation in terrorism-related cases, and asserted that hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted of such offenses.

"More fundamentally, plaintiffs miss the point," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The Order's objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks before they occur. And that is precisely why the Order focuses on six countries that Congress and the prior Administration recently determined pose the greatest risk of terrorist infiltration in the future."

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently blocked the administration from enforcing the order with respect to one family. In that case, a man who had fled Syria and been granted asylum in the United States sued so the ban would not be applied to his wife and 3-year-old daughter, who are still in Aleppo and have asylum applications being processed.

The judge ruled that the family had "some likelihood of success on the merits" and that the man was "at great risk of suffering irreparable harm" if the order were not blocked, so far as it applied to his family.

Information for this article was contributed by staff members of The Associated Press. </s> A United States federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary nationwide restraining order on Friday stopping President Trump's executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States.

The Judge, James Robart, who was appointed by former President George Bush in 2003, ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

"It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does," Ferguson added.

The ruling, made at the request of Washington and Minnesota, is the broadest to date against Trump's executive order.

Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit three days after Trump signed the executive order. The suit argued that the travel ban targets Muslims and violates constitutional rights of immigrants and their families. </s> Three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit grilled lawyers for the Department of Justice and the state of Washington Tuesday in an extraordinary hearing over President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The case before the court centers on the Trump administration's appeal of a nationwide temporary restraining order put in place last Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle. The executive order also placed a hold on worldwide refugee admissions and indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

The administration asserts that the restraining order is "vastly overbroad" and an improper judicial encroachment on the authority of the president.

Thousands of people tuned in to listen to an audio-only live stream of the hearing. The judges have indicated that a ruling could come as soon as today.

Arguing for DOJ was August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general, Civil Division. Washington state's solicitor general, Noah Purcell, presented the case for the states of Washington and Minnesota. Nearly 100 technology companies, as well as numerous civil rights groups and lawyers, filed amicus briefs with the court in support of Washington state.

The three judges who heard the case via telephonic conference were: Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland in San Jose, (appointed by President Barack Obama), who presided over the hearing; Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby in Phoenix (appointed by President Jimmy Carter); and Senior Circuit Judge Richard Clifton in Honolulu (appointed by President George W. Bush).

Here were the key moments from the hearing:

1. Judges Ask for Evidence to Support the Travel Ban

Arguing for the federal government that the president's executive order was "well within the president's power as delegated to him by Congress," Flentje soon found himself on the defensive as Judge Friedland pressed for evidence the government relied on in determining the risks posed by immigrants from the seven majority-Muslim countries affected by the executive order.

"Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?" Friedland asked.

"These proceedings have been moving very fast," Flentje replied, before citing decisions made during the Obama administration to restrict nationals of the seven countries from eligibility in a visa waiver program. "And that is, I think, the strongest type of reliance, where the president is relying on Congress's determination that these are countries of concern."

Chiming in, Judge Canby pointed out that during last week's hearing in Seattle, the federal government's lawyer was unable to provide any examples of federal crimes committed in the U.S. by visa holders from the seven countries.

"Yes, your honor," Flentje answered. "These proceedings have been moving quite fast and we're doing the best we can," he added, before citing an example of people from Somalia who were convicted in the United States of supporting Somali-based terror group Al-Shabaab.

"Is that in the record?" Friedland asked. "Can you point us to where in the record you are referring"

"It is not in the record," Flentje conceded.

Purcell, the Washington solicitor general, argued that "shocking evidence" of President Trump's "intent to discriminate against Muslims" is proof that the travel ban is unconstitutional because it was allegedly motivated by religious discrimination.

But Purcell was repeatedly challenged on that assertion by Judge Clifton, who pointed out that the executive order affects only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide.

"I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Clifton said. "And where the concern for those connected with radical Islamic sects is kind of hard to deny."

"We're not saying that this is a complete ban on Muslims entering the country," Purcell said, referring to the broad exclusionary policy once promoted by Trump early in the presidential campaign.

"[But] we do not need to prove that this order harms only Muslims or that it harms every Muslim," he continued. "We just need to prove that it was motivated by a desire to harm Muslims."

3. Judges Ask Whether the President Could Legally Ban All Muslims

Flentje was repeatedly asked by the judges if the president could explicitly ban all Muslims from entering the country without review by the judicial branch.

"Could the president say in the order, 'We're not going to let any Muslims in'?" Canby asked.

"That's not what the order does here," Flentje replied, avoiding a direct response.

"I know, I know," Canby said. "Could he do that?"

"That's not what the order does," Flentje answered twice more.

As the hearing drew to a close, Flentje conceded that "if there were an executive order that prevented the entry of Muslims, there would be people with standing to challenge that," he said. "But that's not the order we have here. The order is limited to the countries defined by Congress."

"But the allegations are that ... was the motivation," Friedland said. "And plaintiffs have submitted evidence they suggest shows that was the motivation. So why shouldn't the case proceed perhaps to discovery to see if that was really the motivation or not?"

"We're not saying the case shouldn't proceed," Flentje said. "But it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president's national security determination based on some newspaper articles."

4. Solicitor General Points to the Chaotic Rollout of the Executive Order

Purcell argued that the government's shifting interpretations of the executive order led to even legal permanent residents of the U.S. getting swept up in the chaotic first few days.

"They changed their minds about five times about whether it applies to those people in the time since the order issued -- and now they say it doesn't," Purcell said.

And while the White Counsel Don McGahn has since issued a memo to federal agencies indicating that the ban does not apply to legal permanent residents, Purcell argued that until they change the language of the order "to make that crystal-clear," the judges should not discount the possibility that the administration could again alter the enforcement of the ban.

Clifton later raised concerns with Flentje about the legal authority of the White House counsel to instruct other government departments about the meaning of the order. "Why shouldn't we look to the executive branch to more clearly define what the order means rather than looking through the lens of subsequent interpretations?" he asked.

Flentje responded that "the guidance from the White House counsel is the definitive interpretation of the [executive] order and the White House counsel speaks for the president in this context."

5. DOJ Lawyer Says Temporary Restraining Order Is Too Broad

Flentje argued that the temporary restraining order entered by Judge Robart last week is too broad, and said that the plaintiff states have no standing to challenge the president's authority to enforce provisions of the order affecting refugees and visa holders who have never before been admitted to the U.S.

He argued that if the appeals court decides to allow the restraining order to remain in place, it should be modified to apply only to "previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future," he said.

But Purcell argued that limiting the restraining order in that way "would not remedy the [executive] order's violation" of the establishment clause in the Constitution "by favoring one religious group over another's." </s> A United States federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary nationwide restraining order on Friday stopping President Trump's executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the United States.

The Judge, James Robart, who was appointed by former President George Bush in 2003, ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the President.”

"It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does," Ferguson added.

The ruling, made at the request of Washington and Minnesota, is the broadest to date against Trump's executive order.

Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit three days after Trump signed the executive order. The suit argued that the travel ban targets Muslims and violates constitutional rights of immigrants and their families.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM: Latest Addition </s> ABC News(WASHINGTON) — Three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit grilled lawyers for the Department of Justice and the state of Washington Tuesday in a hearing over President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries.

The case before the court centers on the Trump administration’s appeal of a nationwide temporary restraining order put in place last Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle. The executive order also placed a hold on worldwide refugee admissions and indefinitely blocked Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.

The administration asserts that the restraining order is “vastly overbroad” and an improper judicial encroachment on the authority of the president.

Thousands of people tuned in to listen to an audio-only live stream of the hearing. The judges have indicated that a ruling could come as soon as Wednesday.

Arguing for DOJ was August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general, Civil Division. Washington state’s solicitor general, Noah Purcell, presented the case for the states of Washington and Minnesota. Nearly 100 technology companies, as well as numerous civil rights groups and lawyers, filed amicus briefs with the court in support of Washington state.

The three judges who heard the case via telephonic conference were: Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland in San Jose, (appointed by President Barack Obama), who presided over the hearing; Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby in Phoenix (appointed by President Jimmy Carter); and Senior Circuit Judge Richard Clifton in Honolulu (appointed by President George W. Bush).

Here were the key moments from the hearing:

1. Judges Ask for Evidence to Support the Travel Ban

Arguing for the federal government that the president’s executive order was “well within the president’s power as delegated to him by Congress,” Flentje soon found himself on the defensive as Judge Friedland pressed for evidence the government relied on in determining the risks posed by immigrants from the seven majority-Muslim countries affected by the executive order.

“Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?” Friedland asked.

“These proceedings have been moving very fast,” Flentje replied, before citing decisions made during the Obama administration to restrict nationals of the seven countries from eligibility in a visa waiver program. “And that is, I think, the strongest type of reliance, where the president is relying on Congress’s determination that these are countries of concern.”

Chiming in, Judge Canby pointed out that during last week’s hearing in Seattle, the federal government’s lawyer was unable to provide any examples of federal crimes committed in the U.S. by visa holders from the seven countries.

“Yes, your honor,” Flentje answered. “These proceedings have been moving quite fast and we’re doing the best we can,” he added, before citing an example of people from Somalia who were convicted in the United States of supporting Somali-based terror group Al-Shabaab.

“Is that in the record?” Friedland asked. “Can you point us to where in the record you are referring”

“It is not in the record,” Flentje conceded.

Purcell, the Washington solicitor general, argued that “shocking evidence” of President Trump’s “intent to discriminate against Muslims” is proof that the travel ban is unconstitutional because it was allegedly motivated by religious discrimination.

But Purcell was repeatedly challenged on that assertion by Judge Clifton, who pointed out that the executive order affects only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide.

“I have trouble understanding why we’re supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” Clifton said. “And where the concern for those connected with radical Islamic sects is kind of hard to deny.”

“We’re not saying that this is a complete ban on Muslims entering the country,” Purcell said, referring to the broad exclusionary policy once promoted by Trump early in the presidential campaign.

“[But] we do not need to prove that this order harms only Muslims or that it harms every Muslim,” he continued. “We just need to prove that it was motivated by a desire to harm Muslims.”

3. Judges Ask Whether the President Could Legally Ban All Muslims

Flentje was repeatedly asked by the judges if the president could explicitly ban all Muslims from entering the country without review by the judicial branch.

“Could the president say in the order, ‘We’re not going to let any Muslims in’?” Canby asked.

“That’s not what the order does here,” Flentje replied, avoiding a direct response.

“I know, I know,” Canby said. “Could he do that?”

“That’s not what the order does,” Flentje answered twice more.

As the hearing drew to a close, Flentje conceded that “if there were an executive order that prevented the entry of Muslims, there would be people with standing to challenge that,” he said. “But that’s not the order we have here. The order is limited to the countries defined by Congress.”

“But the allegations are that … was the motivation,” Friedland said. “And plaintiffs have submitted evidence they suggest shows that was the motivation. So why shouldn’t the case proceed perhaps to discovery to see if that was really the motivation or not?”

“We’re not saying the case shouldn’t proceed,” Flentje said. “But it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president’s national security determination based on some newspaper articles.”

4. Solicitor General Points to the Chaotic Rollout of the Executive Order

Purcell argued that the government’s shifting interpretations of the executive order led to even legal permanent residents of the U.S. getting swept up in the chaotic first few days.

“They changed their minds about five times about whether it applies to those people in the time since the order issued — and now they say it doesn’t,” Purcell said.

And while the White Counsel Don McGahn has since issued a memo to federal agencies indicating that the ban does not apply to legal permanent residents, Purcell argued that until they change the language of the order “to make that crystal-clear,” the judges should not discount the possibility that the administration could again alter the enforcement of the ban.

Clifton later raised concerns with Flentje about the legal authority of the White House counsel to instruct other government departments about the meaning of the order. “Why shouldn’t we look to the executive branch to more clearly define what the order means rather than looking through the lens of subsequent interpretations?” he asked.

Flentje responded that “the guidance from the White House counsel is the definitive interpretation of the [executive] order and the White House counsel speaks for the president in this context.”



5. DOJ Lawyer Says Temporary Restraining Order Too Broad

Flentje argued that the temporary restraining order entered by Judge Robart last week is too broad, and said that the plaintiff states have no standing to challenge the president’s authority to enforce provisions of the order affecting refugees and visa holders who have never before been admitted to the U.S.

He argued that if the appeals court decides to allow the restraining order to remain in place, it should be modified to apply only to “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future,” he said.

But Purcell argued that limiting the restraining order in that way “would not remedy the [executive] order’s violation” of the establishment clause in the Constitution “by favoring one religious group over another’s.” </s> The Department of Justice has filed an appeal against a federal judge in Washington state’s ruling that temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

The ruling, handed down Friday by Judge James Robart, came as a result of a lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota to halt the order, which temporarily barred travelers and refugees from seven Muslim countries from entering the U.S.

According to the Associated Press, the request for an emergency stay, which would reinstate the order, was filed Saturday night in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This move was largely expected after White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement Friday night calling the ruling an “outrageous order” and saying the administration would file an appeal “at the earliest possible time.”

Trump also blasted the decision on Twitter Saturday morning, saying it spelled “big trouble” and challenging the authority of “this so-called judge.”

Trump also referenced a ruling by a Boston judge earlier Friday that would have allowed an injunction against the ban to expire Sunday, allowing authorities to reinstitute the travel restrictions. Robart’s decision overrode this ruling and was granted on a nationwide basis, per ABC News.

“Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?” Trump wrote on Twitter.

However, the appeal is also likely to create confusion as the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department began giving airlines clearance to accept U.S. visa-holders from the affected countries onto flights on Saturday morning. According to the Associated Press, this has led to a crush of people attempting to enter the country while the order is no longer in effect.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is headquartered in San Francisco, but also has facilities in Seattle.

This is a developing story and will be updated with more details. </s> The Department of Justice has filed an appeal against a federal judge in Washington state’s ruling that temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

The ruling, handed down Friday, came as a result of a lawsuit by the states of Washington and Minnesota to halt the order, which temporarily barred travelers and refugees from seven Muslim countries from entering the U.S.

According to the Associated Press, the request for an emergency stay, which would reinstate the order, was filed Saturday night in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This move was largely expected after White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement Friday night calling the ruling an “outrageous order” and saying the administration would file an appeal “at the earliest possible time.”

This is a developing story and will be updated with more details. </s> A federal judge in Hawaii has rejected a motion filed by that state seeking to limit the scope of President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban, parts of which were cleared to be implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said in a ruling Thursday in Honolulu that the Supreme Court is the proper venue to deal with the issue.

Hawaii argued that the government's plan for enforcing the executive order wrongly excluded grandparents and other relatives from the list of close family members who would still be able to get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force. Government lawyers argued against broadening exceptions, as sought by Hawaii and others.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26 that the administration could begin enforcing part the executive order until it makes a final ruling. The high court also agreed to take up the government's appeal of lower-court rulings which had blocked implementation of Trump's executive order.

"Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here," Watson wrote in Thursday's ruling.

Hawaii was one of the federal courts that blocked implementation of the travel order, which would limit for 90 days entry to the United States of those from six predominantly Muslim nations.

Critics claim that Trump's executive order is a "Muslim ban." Trump has claimed that the order is to protect Americans from terrorism.

Trump issued a second, revised order after the first one was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle and after the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals refused to reinstate it.

The revised order calls for a 90-day ban on issuing visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen who want to come to the U.S. But unlike the first executive order, this one does not apply to anyone who has already obtained a valid visa.

Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law would be subject to the ban.

The executive order also imposes a 120-day ban on refugees who have no "bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the United States.
U.S. federal judges in the states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington sign orders halting implementation of parts of the executive order.