Five states joined a Washington suit [complaint, PDF] on Monday challenging the revised Trump administration executive order [text] restricting immigration from six majority Muslim nations. The states are seeking an injunction to stop the ban before it goes into effect on Thursday. In the complaint the states argue that the order “will cause severe and immediate harms to the States, including our residents, our colleges and universities, our healthcare providers, and our businesses.” The new order shows differences from the original order, removing Iraq from the list of seven original countries and removing the indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria, yet continues to impose a ban on refugees for 120 days. The judge has said that the government has until Tuesday to respond, and that the case will not be heard until at least Wednesday.

As this travel ban seems destined to be tried in the courts the question of the constitutionality of the Presidents actions comes to the forefront of discussion. The states currently joining the Washington suit include Massachusetts, California [JURIST reports], Maryland, New York and Oregon. Hawaii also filed a separate suit [complaint, PDF] in February arguing that the revised order would cause serious business and constitutional concerns if implemented. Challenges to the order are not only being brought by states. Early in February the order faced opposition [JURIST report] from former government employees and private individuals. Earlier this month a federal court judge in Wisconsin issued a restraining order against the travel ban [JURIST report] for one Syrian asylum seeker and his family.