Why is there a constitutional flaw in the lawsuit filed by the state of Hawaii after Trump pushed forward the new "Muslim restriction order"?

On March 6, US President Donald Trump signed a new version of the immigration restriction order. The State of Hawaii is scheduled to submit litigation documents to the court on the 8th, seeking to suspend prosecution of the old version of the restriction order and instead The new restrictions are "troublesome".

Hawaii has also become the first state to initiate a lawsuit after the new version of the restrictions was issued.

Hawaii State prosecutors said they will seek to suspend the implementation of Trump’s entry restriction order. Prosecutor Neal Katyal said in an interview with CNN: “What is certain is that the new executive order targets a smaller group of people than the old version of the restriction, but it also has constitutional and legal flaws. ”

Hawaii State Attorney General Doug King confirmed that relevant documents will be sent to the court on the 8th.

The new entry restriction order is scheduled to take effect on March 16, temporarily prohibiting citizens from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States. The ban is valid for 90 days. The new version of the restriction excludes Iraq. Regarding the new version of the restriction, the U.S. Department of Justice said: "We are convinced that the president is legally protecting U.S. national security by doing this."

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly revealed in an interview with CNN on the 6th that the new ban involves There will be more than 6 countries in the future, and there will be 13 or 4 more countries. The new countries are not limited to Islamic countries, nor are they only from the Middle East.

Previously, Trump issued an executive order on January 27, temporarily banning the entry of refugees from around the world and citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Iraq. Once the executive order was promulgated, public opinion was in an uproar. Judge James Robart of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington State made a ruling in Seattle on February 3, suspending the implementation of Trump’s entry restrictions nationwide. The Department of Justice immediately appealed, requesting an emergency stay of the Robart ruling, but this appeal was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In view of the promulgation of the new version of the restraining order, the Department of Justice stated on the 7th that it would withdraw its appeal against the "Robart Ruling" and that Washington State did not object.