Source: http://www.declaration17.com/re-executive-order-eo-entitled-protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:37:10+00:00

Document:
He signed the Executive Order (EO) entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” The EO, among other actions, temporarily suspends the operation of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and indefinitely bans the entry of Syrian refugees; temporarily suspends entry of all persons from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen; and institutes exceptions and preferences for refugees who are members of a religious minority and claim religious persecution.
The EO suspends for 90 days entry into the United States for persons from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
The EO suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, with an exception for individuals whose admission is “in the national interest,” including individuals who are members of minority religious groups and are facing religious persecution.
The EO also provides for USRAP, upon resumption, to prioritize refugee applications made based on religious persecution, but only for those who are members of a minority religion in their country.
The EO suspends entry of Syrians as refugees until such time as President Trump shall decide that refugee vetting procedures are adequate.
In discriminating against persons without lawful justification based on religion and country of origin, these provisions likely violate equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, as well as provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In failing to give and denying affected persons minimal due process protections, these provisions likely violate procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
In giving unlawful official preference to certain religions, some of these provisions likely violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Numerous legal cases alleging such challenges to this EO were brought in federal courts around the country. In the days following the EO, at least seven federal district courts temporarily halted the implementation of the EO, in whole or in part, though one of the courts denied a motion to extend a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). See Darweesh v. Trump, 1:17-cv-00480 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 28, 2017) (order granting temporary stay of removal); Aziz v. Trump, 1:17-cv-116 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2017)(order granting TRO)); Louhghalam v. Trump, 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Jan. 29, 2017)(order granting TRO), motion to extend TRO denied, 17-cv-10154 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017); Vayeghan v. Kelly, 17-0702 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2017)(order granting TRO);, Mohammed v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00786-AB-PLA (C.D. Cal. Jan 31, 2017)(order granting motion for TRO and/or preliminary injunction); Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, 2:17-cv-10310 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2017) (order granting partial permanent injunction); State of Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141-JLR (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) (order granting TRO), emergency motion for stay of TRO denied, 2:17-cv-00141 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017).

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