Amidst all the recent discussion of sanctuary cities, Dreamers and DACA, you may have forgotten that President Trump's other controversial move impacting immigrants and travelers into the U.S., primarily those from Muslim-majority nations, remains in play after a third attempt by Trump and the Department of Justice to issue a broad-reaching travel ban.
In late June, the justices allowed Trump's travel ban to take partial effect, but they allowed people with "close familial relationships" with someone in the U.S.to enter the country.
Challengers to the ban argue, though, that the additions are mainly symbolic: the ban only affects certain government officials from Venezuela, and very few people actually travel to the US from North Korea each year.
In announcing the newest travel restrictions, the White House had portrayed them as necessary consequences for countries that did not meet new requirements for vetting of immigrants and issuing of visas.
A federal judge in Maryland heard arguments Monday for and against the most recent Trump administration travel restrictions, but didn't rule from the bench.
The question of whether President Trump has the authority to put such a ban in place remains up in the air.
Judge Watson wrote that the latest ban "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor".
President Trump added North Korea, Chad and Venezuela to his administration's existing travel ban. "Today is another victory for the rule of law". It banned entry of citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days.
'Supergirl' season 3 spoilers: Kara to face Psi in episode 2
As for Lena, she seems very excited to be working at CatCo and, more importantly, she's happy to be working alongside her friend. She doesn't know what her future holds and it adds to the mystery and also makes for some wonderful character development.
"It is senseless and cruel to ban whole nationalities of people who are often fleeing the very same violence that the USA government wishes to keep out". Watson said that the new entry ban - like previous iterations - "plainly discriminates" based on nationality.
Eric Schneider, attorney general of NY, one of the state's challenging the order, said it remained a "Muslim ban by another name".
"It excludes over 100 million people, and it actually makes it worse by extending the ban indefinitely", he said.
Judge Watson said he would set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended.
The American Civil Liberties Union is also opposed to the ban.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Hawaii is also weighing a motion to block the restrictions.
That ban - aimed mostly at Muslim-majority countries - led to chaos and confusion at airports nationwide and triggered several lawsuits, including one from Hawaii. The new ruling by Judge Derrick K. Watson is only one piece of the complicated legal puzzle over the long-term fate of the president's efforts to limit travel to the U.S.
The US Supreme Court ruled that government was not required to court on travel bans, citing final regulation, while U.S. Department of Justice did not yet have an explanation.
When Trump revised the ban, Hawaii challenged that version, too, and Watson agreed it amounted to discrimination based on nationality and religion.