Questions and answers about upcoming travel ban order

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's travel ban has been frozen by the courts, but the White House has promised a new executive order that officials say will address concerns raised by judges that have put the policy on hold.

The first order was met by legal challenges, confusion at airports and mass protests.

Trump aide Stephen Miller said at a Fox News town hall last week that the new order would be very similar to the first, with "mostly minor technical differences" in response to opinions by judges who have blocked it.

[...] the president and the White House press secretary have also recently said that they intend to fight for the merits of the original order in court, even as they draft a replacement.

In refusing last month to reinstate the travel ban, which a judge in Washington state had blocked from taking effect, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals identified "significant constitutional questions" with the administration's plan to temporarily suspend the refugee program and to halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The 9th Circuit decision, for instance, said the first order may have violated the constitutional rights of green-card holders to notice and a hearing before their travel was restricted.

The 9th Circuit did not fully address the issue, but did note that courts assessing the motive of a government action can take into account statements by decision-makers.

If the original executive order is formally rescinded and replaced, as is the prerogative of a president, then lawsuits challenging it would be effectively nullified as the focus turns to the new policy, legal experts say.

[...] arguments made by lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota that appeared to sway the 9th Circuit could easily be recycled in another or amended legal challenge.