What are the latest developments in the ongoing lawsuit against the Trump Administration over its decision to keep the term “Muslim” in the President’s travel ban?

By the time President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning travelers from six Muslim-majority countries last month, it was already a landmark in American history.

In the United States, there have been countless attempts to undo the ban and have succeeded in the past.

Now the Justice Department is pursuing the case against Trump for violating the First Amendment, arguing that the ban violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.”s District Court for the District of Columbia and will go before the U,S.

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sometime next month.

It is likely that the 9,000-page brief will be a key part of the arguments that the government will make to overturn the ban.

Trump signed the executive order on January 27 and it is expected that it will go into effect within a few weeks.

But the administration has already appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing in part that the Executive Order is unconstitutional.

As part of its legal effort to overturn Trump’s order, the Trump administration has also been pressing the courts to order the travel ban to be enforced.

That effort began in early January when Justice Department lawyers sent a letter to a judge in Washington, D.C., arguing that while the executive decree was issued “in good faith” by the executive branch, it is also in violation of the federal Constitution.

They cited the Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision in Obergefell v.

Hodges, which found that the states have the right to pass laws that directly affect their residents.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government has the power to implement its own policies that affect states.

But, the court’s ruling did not address the question of whether the president has the authority to issue executive orders to implement a federal law.

“But his power to create a program of national emergency to suspend entry of aliens from a country is clearly an exception to the Establishment Clause.” “

The President has broad authority to enact and enforce the laws of the United State,” they wrote in their brief.

“But his power to create a program of national emergency to suspend entry of aliens from a country is clearly an exception to the Establishment Clause.”

The administration has filed numerous legal briefs in the case, including one from the U.,S.

Chamber of Commerce and a former federal judge, Joseph Carona.

“This Executive Order violates both the Establishment and Establishment Clause of the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as the Establishment clause and the Due Process Clause of our Constitution,” the Justice argued in their letter.

“By suspending travel of aliens to the United Kingdom and other countries, the President is also effectively denying those citizens a right guaranteed by the First.

The President’s Executive Order, moreover, is unconstitutional as a discriminatory exercise of his authority to regulate interstate commerce, and is therefore in violation and void as to its face,” they added.

In their brief, the Chamber of Industry and the National Association of Manufacturers argued that the administration’s argument is not convincing.

“Our contention is that the President lacks authority to ban entry of foreigners from the countries in question because they are members of a religious group and therefore pose a direct threat to the national security of the nation,” the Chamber said in its brief.

The Chamber of Manufactures said in their filing that “it has long been clear that the Secretary of Homeland Security has broad powers under the Establishment Clauses of the Constitution to enact policies which may or may not be directed against religious groups.”

It argued that “the President has no authority to impose such policies,” because he is “not a sovereign power” under the Constitution and because the Constitution protects the states from being “controlled by one political party over another.”

The Justice Department also argued in its filing that the travel restriction was “not directed against the specific religion of the plaintiffs,” because it is “a reasonable and necessary restriction of travel.”

In addition, the government’s brief said that “there is no evidence that the plaintiffs are currently engaged in terrorist activity.”

“Moreover, it would be implausible to think that the Travel Ban is necessary to protect the national interest,” the filing added.

“It would be far more reasonable to assume that the threat of terrorism posed by the aliens would be mitigated by a more rational policy, such as a reduction in the number of visitors to the countries.”

The Trump administration argued in the filing that its argument is valid because the president was acting in the public interest, but it is unclear if the court agrees with the arguments of the Justice.

The Justice filed its brief in response to the Trump Department’s motion to dismiss the case earlier this month.

The Department of Justice argued that it has jurisdiction because the executive directive was issued by the president, and that the Department of Homeland Defense had the power “to enforce” the order.

The Trump government also argued that