Ban

Donald Trump proposed the suspension of immigration during his campaign, as outlined his promises for his administrations first 100 days. His statement said that the suspension would be one of the 5 things he would do on his first day:

"* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting."

Updates 

June 26, 2017: 

"The Supreme Court on Monday permitted a scaled-back version of President Trump’s ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, deciding to hear the merits of the case in the fall but allowing Trump for now to claim a victory in the legal showdown.

The court’s unsigned order delivered a compromise neither side had asked for: It said the government may not bar those with a “bona fide” connection to the United States, such as having family members here, or a job or a place in an American university.
[...]
In the opinion, the court said it will hear arguments in the case — which raises fundamental questions about religious discrimination and the president’s broad powers to protect the nation — when it reconvenes in October." -Washington Post

June 12, 2017: "A second federal appeals court has ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban, delivering on Monday the latest in a string of defeats for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries." NYT Trump Loses Travel Ban Ruling in Appeals Court

June 5, 2017: "The fight over President Trump’s travel ban reached the Supreme Court late Thursday night, in the form of three urgent requests from the Justice Department.

Here is a look at where things stand, and the justices’ options."  Supreme Court's Options in Travel Ban Case, New York Times

Washington Attorney General Says Travel Ban Will Likely Go to Supreme Court, NPR April 29
"FERGUSON: You bet. Well, essentially the original travel ban has been shut down, blocked in the courts, and they've essentially given up on that. So our initial litigation worked. He has done a revised travel ban, as you know, after many weeks of consideration. That has also been blocked in a couple of different courts - in Hawaii and in Maryland. Those cases are on appeal.
But while those cases go up on appeal, the executive order has been stopped and injunction is in place. I do think, Michel, the long story very short is this will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court."

ACLU files 13 suits, after difficulty getting Freedom of Information Requests from the government, NPR The Two Way, April 12, 2017

The 4th Circuit plans to consider Trump’s order on May 8. Politico

The 9th Circuit has scheduled a hearing on May 15. LA Times

 

Second Iteration of Immigration Order (scroll down for synopsis of 1st 'ban' order)

Trump's first executive order limiting immigration and travel from 7 countries identified as terrorist hotbeds stopped before heading to a challenge in the Supreme Court. Instead the administration crafted a second order, omitting Iraq as an affected state, and omitting language that favored minority religions for entry. 

As predicted, Trump's second order is being challenged just as the first was. Why? 

There is an underlying belief that the Trump administration would like to discriminate against Muslims as a group -- to keep all Muslims out of the U.S. Even though neither travel order stated, or even provided that anyone be rejected from the U.S. based on being Muslim. The trouble is that Trump did make explicit claims to enact a "Muslim Ban" on the campaign trail. Check out NBC's In His Words: Donald Trump on the Muslim Ban, and Deportations. Here is an excerpt:

"Just a few hours before a rally in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, Donald Trump released a policy proposal online which called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." The 2015 policy proposed a blanket ban on Muslims based on what Trump called "hatred" of the West innate in Islam.

In the days that followed, Trump pointed to what he considered historical precedent to defend his singling out of the Muslim religion with his ban. He used FDR's Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527, which applied to Japanese, Italian, and German Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor as examples. Those proclamations authorized the U.S. to "detain allegedly potentially dangerous enemy aliens" and led to the internment of many of these individuals"

 In addition, several people have been subject to 'extra vetting' or prevented from entering the U.S. based on profiling of names, or physical features, regardless of the country they were traveling from. These real-life consequences of Trump's order -- profiling -- is just what opposition voices feared from Trumps executive order.

The second order has been challenged by two Federal judges, one in Hawaii, and one in Maryland. The New York Times reported:

"Judge Derrick K. Watson, of Federal District Court in Honolulu, wrote that a “reasonable, objective observer” would view even the new order as “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.

In Maryland, Judge Theodore D. Chuang echoed that conclusion hours later, ruling in a case brought by nonprofit groups that work with refugees and immigrants, that the likely purpose of the executive order was “the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban” that Mr. Trump pledged to enact as a presidential candidate."

Representative Barletta's statement on court challenges to Trump's second iteration 

First Iteration of Immigration Order

Two popular narratives framed the first iteration of Trump's suspension order as a "Muslim Ban," and "business decision."

Trump was sued by Washington and Minnesota. The states claim 'irreparable injury' for harm to families and businesses who have relations with immigrants from the 7 countries targeted in Trump's executive order.

A federal Judge put an injunction on the order.  The case may have made its way to the supreme court, but the administration did not pursue court action past the 9th Circuit. Instead the Trump administration wrote a new order they hope will be less vulnerable to challenge, though many think any new order will also be challenged.

From the NYT, on the second, reworked order:

The order will: "publicize crimes by undocumented immigrants; strip such immigrants of privacy protections; enlist local police officers as enforcers; erect new detention facilities; discourage asylum seekers; and, ultimately, speed up deportations."

from the same article, on possible court challenges to the second order:

"Lawyers and advocates for immigrants said the new policies could still be challenged in court. Maricopa County in Arizona spent years defending its sheriff at the time, Joseph Arpaio, in federal court, where he was found to have discriminated against Latinos."

Trump's Full Executive Order (initial order): "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

Legislation referred to defining the 7 states as 'states of concern':
Section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)
Updates to the law under Obama Admin 

Some believed the initial executive order to be unconstitutional and illegal under: the establishment clause of the first amendment; equal protection under the 14th amendment; and/or  illegal under immigration laws that prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

U.S. Representative Lou Barletta's statements on the initial order:
Washington Journal C-Span Video
Barletta: 7 Nation in order comprise 25% of terrorist arrests