A federal judge in Michigan on Wednesday denied a government request to dismiss a revised lawsuit against President Trump’s travel ban.
U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts determined that the case the plaintiffs — four American Muslims and five organizations representing them — are making revolves around equal protection and freedom of speech and association and is separate from the Establishment Clause claim the Supreme Court considered last year when it upheld the ban.
{mosads}Wednesday’s decision follows a similar one in Maryland where U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled a lawsuit could proceed because of new information about how the administration has implemented the ban.
These two decisions both mean the fight over Trump’s travel ban is not over.
Opponents of the ban argue it unfairly targets people from Muslim-majority countries, but Trump has insisted it is not a “Muslim ban.”
Roberts, a Clinton appointee, noted that despite being “facially neutral,” as the Supreme Court ruled, “its impact falls predominantly on Muslims.”
She continued, writing that when the third version of the travel ban was introduced, following successful legal challenges to the first two versions, the administration said it “addresses the issues President Trump had been talking about for years, ‘from the campaign trail to the White House.'”
“Notably, what President Trump made explicit while on the campaign trail was his desire and intention to ban Muslims from entering the United States – even if it meant framing the ban in terms of ‘territories.'”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill on Roberts’s decision.