Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/results.php?saveRef=pl&search=source%7Cgeneral%3BspecialCollection%7C44%3Borderby%7CfilingYear%3B
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:08:46+00:00

Document:
President Trump has issued a series of Executive Orders relating to immigration and refugee policy. The first order on refugees, available here, totally barred admission into the United States of all nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen--including those who are already legal green card holders and already here. Legal challenges ensued immediately. The original Executive Order was placed on hold when in States of Washington and Minnesota v. Trump the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary injunction against its operation, and on Feb. 9, the 9th Circuit refused to stay that injunction.
In response, the President on March 6, 2017, rescinded the refugee order and replaced it with a somewhat narrower one, available here. The new order faced immediate challenge, as well; the first case to attack it was Hawaii v. Trump. In that case, on March 15, the federal district court enjoined operation of the Executive Order. Hawaii’s injunction was quickly followed by a second one, entered in IRAP v. Trump, in the District of Maryland. Both were affirmed on appeal by the 9th Circuit and the 4th Circuit, respectively. On June 1, 2017, the Trump administration took the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking a stay of both injunctions, and certiorari review. The Court granted cert., scheduling oral argument on the merits for October 10, 2017. In the meantime, the Court declined to stay most of the lower courts’ injunction, but did narrow the preliminary injunctions to protect only would-be visitors/immigrants to the U.S. with a "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity. On June 29, 2017, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security issued several public documents explaining that the administration would interpret a qualifying “bona fide relationship” to exclude many relatives - fiancés, grandparents/grandchildren, siblings-in-law, and others. The federal government also explained its view that the relationship between a refugee and a sponsoring resettlement agency would not be sufficient to establish a qualifying “bona fide relationship” under this interpretation.
For the next two months, the federal government and plaintiffs continued to battle about the scope and meaning of “bona fide relationship” under the Supreme Court’s narrowed injunction. Meanwhile, the travel ban imposed by the second Executive Order expired on September 24, 2017. That same day, the Trump Administration signed a proclamation, available here, indefinitely restricting travel from the following eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Supreme Court cancelled the October 8 hearing and asked the parties to file new briefs in light of the proclamation, addressing specifically whether the September 24 proclamation and the 90-day ban’s expiration rendered the instant case moot. On October 10, 2017, the Supreme Court determined that the appeal no longer presented a live case or controversy, and remanded it to the circuit courts to dismiss the underlying challenges as moot.
Plaintiffs quickly resumed litigation in the federal district courts. On October 17, 2017, the district courts in both Hawaii v. Trump and IRAP v. Trump enjoined the Trump administration from enforcing its new proclamation nationwide. The federal government immediately appealed both orders and moved to stay the district courts’ injunctions pending appeal. In Hawaii v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit is set to hear oral argument on the federal government’s motion to stay the district court’s injunction on December 6, 2017. In IRAP v. Trump (now consolidated with Iranian Alliances Across Borders v. Trump and Zakzok v. Trump), the Fourth Circuit is set to hear oral argument on the government’s motion to stay the district court’s injunction on December 8, 2017. More details and the documents are available at the links above.
Dozens of cases were filed against the original executive order; many have continued, after amendment, to challenge the newest version. We have incorporated the principal cases into the Clearinghouse. We've also posted a spreadsheet of the cases, here. Please note: The information in the list is pulled from the federal court's electronic docket system, PACER--it is preliminary and partial, and may have errors.
This page collects challenges the refugee/visa order. For cases challenging immigration enforcement orders, go to this page. And for Freedom of Information Act litigation against the Trump administration, including a great deal of litigation relating to immigration and border enforcement, go to this page.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.