The legal fight over Trump’s executive order

Since Pres­id­ent Trump signed a sweep­ing ex­ec­ut­ive or­der that tem­por­ar­ily banned entry for refugees, as well as oth­er im­mig­rants from sev­en mostly Muslim coun­tries, dozens of law­suits were filed against him amid wide­spread con­fu­sion over the new im­mig­ra­tion rules.

Read the doc­u­ments be­low and catch up on the twists and turns of the court cases and fil­ings.

In a sig­ni­fic­ant push­back from the ju­di­ciary, a fed­er­al ap­peals court de­cided Thursday to con­tin­ue block­ing en­force­ment of Pres­id­ent Trump’s ex­ec­ut­ive or­der bar­ring trav­el­ers from sev­en pre­dom­in­antly Muslim na­tions from en­ter­ing the U.S. “We hold that the Gov­ern­ment has not shown a like­li­hood of suc­cess on the mer­its of its ap­peal, nor has it shown that fail­ure to enter a stay would cause ir­re­par­able in­jury,” the pan­el of two Demo­crat­ic ...

This is the ex­ec­ut­ive or­der that ig­nited the firestorm. In it, Pres­id­ent Trump ar­gues that the United States is put at risk by ad­mit­ting im­mig­rants or vis­it­ors who might “bear hos­tile at­ti­tudes” to­ward the United States and its people. Al­though it nev­er names the coun­tries that pose a spe­cial threat, it cites sec­tions of the Im­mig­ra­tion and Na­tion­al­ity Act that ap­ply to cit­izens of Ir­an, Ir­aq, Libya, Somalia, Su­dan, Syr­ia ...

U.S. Dis­trict Judge James Robart is­sued a tem­por­ary re­strain­ing or­der against Pres­id­ent Don­ald Trump’s im­mig­ra­tion re­stric­tions on Fri­day, and signaled that the or­der ap­plies to cases across the coun­try.

The De­part­ment of Justice filed an emer­gency mo­tion late Sat­urday ask­ing a fed­er­al ap­peals court to re­in­state an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der that sus­pen­ded new ar­rivals from sev­en ma­jor­ity Muslim coun­tries, a con­tro­ver­sial pro­gram that sparked protests around the world. In a fil­ing with the U.S. 9th Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, fed­er­al at­tor­neys re­ques­ted an im­me­di­ate stay of U.S. Dis­trict Judge James Robart’s tem­por­ary re­strain­ing or­der Fri­day that sus­pen­ded en­force­ment of the ...

This is an “amicus,” or friend of the court, brief filed by 97 lead­ing tech­no­logy com­pan­ies, ar­guing against the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ban on travel for cit­izens of sev­en mostly Muslim coun­tries. The com­pan­ies com­prise a who’s who of the In­ter­net eco­nomy and in­clude Apple, Mi­crosoft, Google, Face­book, Twit­ter, Uber, Ly­ft, Airb­nb, eBay, Net­flix, Snap, Spo­ti­fy and Yelp. They ar­gue that the Court of Ap­peals should not grant the gov­ern­ment an ...

Wash­ing­ton and Min­nesota, which filed the ini­tial law­suit that led to a halt of the travel ban, filed this brief ar­guing against the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ap­peal. They ar­gue that the re­stric­tions on im­mig­ra­tion for people from sev­en pre­dom­in­antly Muslim coun­tries “un­leashed chaos” and caused “ex­traordin­ary and ir­re­par­able harm … on our states and our people.” They spe­cific­ally com­plain of dam­age to state uni­versity sys­tems “by strand­ing our uni­versity stu­dents and ...

Cali­for­nia and 14 oth­er states, along with the Dis­trict of Columbia, joined the grow­ing leg­al chal­lenge to Pres­id­ent Trump’s im­mig­ra­tion or­ders, fil­ing an amicus brief Monday sup­port­ing Wash­ing­ton state’s law­suit that ar­gues the dir­ect­ives tar­get­ing people from Muslim-ma­jor­ity coun­tries are un­con­sti­tu­tion­al. Those join­ing Cali­for­nia were Con­necti­c­ut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Mary­land, Mas­sachu­setts, New Mex­ico, New York, Ore­gon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Is­land, Vir­gin­ia, Ver­mont and the Dis­trict of Columbia.

A fed­er­al judge in Brook­lyn on Janu­ary 28 night stayed de­port­a­tions un­der Pres­id­ent Trump’s ex­ec­ut­ive or­der bar­ring cit­izens of sev­en mostly Muslim coun­tries from en­ter­ing the United States.