Donald Trump’s revised travel ban is causing turmoil in the courts once again, as one US judge granted asylum to a Syrian refugee’s family, while another declined to rule on the latest version.
District Judge James Robart has come under criticism for claiming that a complaint or motion needs to be filed against the new executive order before he can make a decision.
After a public outcry against the original ban, the Seattle-based judge ruled in February that Mr Trump's executive was unconstitutional, stopping it from being implemented across the country.
But Judge Robart said he would not be able to rule on the second ban until lawyers filed the appropriate paperwork.
Nevertheless, a judge in Wisconsin has already circumnavigated Mr Trump’s travel ban by allowing the wife and child of a Syrian refugee who had already been granted asylum to enter the country.
The president’s latest executive order, issued on March 6, removed Iraq from the list of countries whose citizens will be subject to a 90-day travel ban, but Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan all remain banned.
The Syrian husband, who has been in the US since 2014, applied for asylum for his family to join him but the process was halted by Mr Trump’s initial executive order.
District Judge William Conley, who had been appointed by president Barack Obama, overruled Mr Trump’s travel ban, explaining that the family would face “significant risk of irreparable harm” if they stayed in Syria.
Although the judge’s ruling to bar Mr Trump’s second travel ban only applies to the Syrian family, it is is thought to be the first of many legal challenges that will be presented to the courts before the executive order comes into force on March 16.