More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court(Reuters) - Several states said on Thursday they would move forward with legal challenges to a revised executive order signed by President Donald Trump this week that temporarily bars the admission of refugees and some travelers from a group of Muslim-majority countries. The new travel order, which is set to take effect on March 16, changed and replaced a more sweeping ban issued on Jan. 27 that caused chaos and protests at airports. The first order was hit by more than two dozen lawsuits, including a challenge brought by Washington state and joined by Minnesota. In response to Washington’s suit, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ordered an emergency halt to the policy last month. That ruling was upheld by an appeals court in San Francisco. Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson said on Thursday he planned to ask Robart to confirm that his ruling would also apply to Trump’s revised order, which would halt it from being implemented. Ferguson told a news conference the new order harmed a “smaller group” of individuals but that would not affect the state’s ability to challenge it in court.  He said the burden was on the Trump administration to show that the court ruling from last month did not apply to its new policy.  A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation. The government has said the president has wide authority to implement immigration policy and that the travel rules are necessary to protect against terrorist attacks. New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said on Thursday he would be joining Washington’s lawsuit against the new ban and the state of Oregon said it would join too.  The opposition comes on top of a separate legal challenge to the new ban brought by Hawaii on Wednesday. Hawaii had also sued over the previous order and is seeking to amend its complaint to include the new ban. A hearing in that case is set for next Wednesday, a day before the clock starts on the new order.     The states and immigration advocates argue the new ban, like the original one, discriminates against Muslims. Trump’s new executive order was designed with the intention of avoiding the legal hurdles.  While the new order keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, it excludes Iraq.  Refugees are still halted from entering the country for 120 days, but the new order removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria. The revisions include explicit exemptions for legal permanent residents or existing visa holders and waivers are allowed on a case-by-case basis for some business, diplomatic and other travelers.      The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving “standing,” which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals a court would rule have a right to sue. politicsNews
more states seek halt trump new travel ban court reuters several states said thursday would move forward legal challenges revised executive order signed president donald trump week temporarily bars admission refugees travelers group countries the new travel order set take effect march changed replaced sweeping ban issued caused chaos protests airports the first order hit two dozen lawsuits including challenge brought washington state joined minnesota in response washington suit district judge james robert seattle ordered emergency halt policy last month that ruling upheld appeals court san francisco washington state attorney general robert ferguson said thursday planned ask robert confirm ruling would also apply trump revised order would halt implemented ferguson told news conference new order harmed smaller group individuals would affect state ability challenge court he said burden trump administration show court ruling last month apply new policy a department justice spokeswoman declined comment pending litigation the government said president wide authority implement immigration policy travel rules necessary protect terrorist attacks new york attorney general eric schneiderman said thursday would joining washington lawsuit new ban state oregon said would join the opposition comes top separate legal challenge new ban brought hawaii wednesday hawaii also sued previous order seeking amend complaint include new ban a hearing case set next wednesday day clock starts new order the states immigration advocates argue new ban like original one discriminate muslims trump new executive order designed intention avoiding legal hurdles while new order keeps ban travel united states citizens iran libya syria somalia sudan yemen excludes iraq refugees still halted entering country days new order removed indefinite ban refugees syria the revisions include explicit exemptions legal permanent residents existing visa holders waivers allowed basis business diplomatic travelers the first hurdle lawsuits proving standing means finding someone harmed policy with many exemptions legal experts said might hard find individuals court would rule right sue politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: More states seek to halt Trump's new travel ban in court(Reuters) - Several states said on Thursday they would move forward with legal challenges to a revised executive order signed by President Donald Trump this week that temporarily bars the admission of refugees and some travelers from a group of Muslim-majority countries. The new travel order, which is set to take effect on March 16, changed and replaced a more sweeping ban issued on Jan. 27 that caused chaos and protests at airports. The first order was hit by more than two dozen lawsuits, including a challenge brought by Washington state and joined by Minnesota. In response to Washington’s suit, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle ordered an emergency halt to the policy last month. That ruling was upheld by an appeals court in San Francisco. Washington state Attorney General Robert Ferguson said on Thursday he planned to ask Robart to confirm that his ruling would also apply to Trump’s revised order, which would halt it from being implemented. Ferguson told a news conference the new order harmed a “smaller group” of individuals but that would not affect the state’s ability to challenge it in court.  He said the burden was on the Trump administration to show that the court ruling from last month did not apply to its new policy.  A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation. The government has said the president has wide authority to implement immigration policy and that the travel rules are necessary to protect against terrorist attacks. New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said on Thursday he would be joining Washington’s lawsuit against the new ban and the state of Oregon said it would join too.  The opposition comes on top of a separate legal challenge to the new ban brought by Hawaii on Wednesday. Hawaii had also sued over the previous order and is seeking to amend its complaint to include the new ban. A hearing in that case is set for next Wednesday, a day before the clock starts on the new order.     The states and immigration advocates argue the new ban, like the original one, discriminates against Muslims. Trump’s new executive order was designed with the intention of avoiding the legal hurdles.  While the new order keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, it excludes Iraq.  Refugees are still halted from entering the country for 120 days, but the new order removed an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria. The revisions include explicit exemptions for legal permanent residents or existing visa holders and waivers are allowed on a case-by-case basis for some business, diplomatic and other travelers.      The first hurdle for the lawsuits will be proving “standing,” which means finding someone who has been harmed by the policy. With so many exemptions, legal experts have said it might be hard to find individuals a court would rule have a right to sue. politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: more states seek halt trump new travel ban court reuters several states said thursday would move forward legal challenges revised executive order signed president donald trump week temporarily bars admission refugees travelers group countries the new travel order set take effect march changed replaced sweeping ban issued caused chaos protests airports the first order hit two dozen lawsuits including challenge brought washington state joined minnesota in response washington suit district judge james robert seattle ordered emergency halt policy last month that ruling upheld appeals court san francisco washington state attorney general robert ferguson said thursday planned ask robert confirm ruling would also apply trump revised order would halt implemented ferguson told news conference new order harmed smaller group individuals would affect state ability challenge court he said burden trump administration show court ruling last month apply new policy a department justice spokeswoman declined comment pending litigation the government said president wide authority implement immigration policy travel rules necessary protect terrorist attacks new york attorney general eric schneiderman said thursday would joining washington lawsuit new ban state oregon said would join the opposition comes top separate legal challenge new ban brought hawaii wednesday hawaii also sued previous order seeking amend complaint include new ban a hearing case set next wednesday day clock starts new order the states immigration advocates argue new ban like original one discriminate muslims trump new executive order designed intention avoiding legal hurdles while new order keeps ban travel united states citizens iran libya syria somalia sudan yemen excludes iraq refugees still halted entering country days new order removed indefinite ban refugees syria the revisions include explicit exemptions legal permanent residents existing visa holders waivers allowed basis business diplomatic travelers the first hurdle lawsuits proving standing means finding someone harmed policy with many exemptions legal experts said might hard find individuals court would rule right sue politicsnews