Page 2 - Order Temporary Restraining News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

That executive order relied on congressional and administrative of 2015 and 2016 and it's not an order that discriminates on the basis of religion there would be no valid of equal protection. >> could the president simply say in the order we're not going to let any muslims in? >> that's not what the order does here. >> i know. >> the order relies on -- >> could he do that? >> that's not what the order does. >> would anybody be able to challenge that? >> that's not what the order

Decision about that. until they change the order to make that crystal clear, that claim, they can't say it doesn't apply to them, don't worry about it. that's half a million people in the united states who overnight at least according to government, lost their right to travel, to come in out of the country to visit that -- >> why she would limit reach to those people who have you a strong case for like the lpr, why should temporary restraining order reach beyond that why is it over broad? >> first of all, limiting order in that way would not -- it would not remedy order's violation of the esta...

That even if it from anal ble t address all of our harms. >> in establishing claim should we apply lawson or lemon? >> we think the case is close to larson. in larson you have a law it did not mention religious domination by names, it would distinguish between the two. we have an order that on its face did not mention any dem denomination but there's report to some groups over others. that's exactly the case in larson. larson doesn't apply but that's not what larson itself said.

Judicially conniezble. across the country there are lawsuits where there's standing. there are people impacted by this order and there are cases across the country where we don't have type of standing argument. but in this case there's a lot of law that says states can't step into the shoes of their -- in this context. if we credit them, there would be no limitation on standing. in that context it doesn't make sense to extend jury ris predense to cover this point. it is over broad and should be immediately stayed to the extend it is over broad even if the court things application are

Category of washington residents or people with visa, i suspect it's a small fraction. >> first of all, we are at the pleading stage. we filed a complaint and a motion for tro. all of our -- thousands of people in washington, thousands more in minnesota who are from these country who are not yet citizens here. we know the way the order was interpreting, defendants originally interpreted the order and said that it covered lawful residents. we know there's permitted lawful residents in the u.s. they changed their mind five times in the -- know they say it doesn't. at the time the state filed it'...