Avideh Moussavian is a senior policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and works on the frontlines of immigration reform at the local and national levels. Avideh answers some of our burning questions about the status of immigration law today, focusing on President Trump’s recent executive orders concerning immigration into the United States.

Can you summarize the main points of the president’s executive orders?

On Jan. 27, President Trump signed an executive order that made several key changes to preexisting immigration policy. It suspended the entire U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for at least 120 days, indefinitely banned Syrian refugees from resettling in the U.S. and banned individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries—Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq and Syria—from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. It also authorized the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to add additional countries to this list. On Feb. 3, a federal district court in Seattle placed many of the executive order’s provisions on hold, and on Feb. 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. However, the overall rejection of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 refugees is still in place.

A few weeks later, on March 6, the Trump administration issued another executive order, which rescinded the Jan. 27 executive order. Still, the March 6 order is substantially similar to the first one. It does not single out Syrian refugees as the first one did, but it still suspends the refugee program for 120 days. Unlike the previous version, it does not single out exceptions based on religion. It still bans individuals from certain countries, though it does not include Iraq in that list, and it does not ban legal permanent residents, U.S. visa-holders or people from the six banned countries who have dual nationality with a country not identified in the order.

What is the status of these orders?

Most of the provisions in the orders are currently on hold.

After the initial Jan. 27 order was signed, numerous lawsuits challenging it were filed. Those suits were amended after the March 6 executive order was issued. Legal arguments against the orders include failure to provide due process, lack of notice, and the irreparable harm caused to the state and individuals. The lawsuits also argue that the orders were written with discriminatory intent and single out certain countries arbitrarily. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision ordered a temporary stay against the President’s Jan. 27 executive order, but it didn’t touch on all these aspects and didn’t actually rule on the merits of the case.

On March 15, a Hawaii federal district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining the government from enforcing sections of the March 6 executive order. On March 29, the TRO was converted into a preliminary injunction, indefinitely blocking certain provisions of the order. The federal government has appealed the decision, and the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument on May 15. In a separate lawsuit challenging the orders, the Fourth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral arguments on May 8.

What happens if the Trump administration does not comply with the various court orders?

In NILC’s lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, which we filed against the first executive order, we’ve been asking the government to submit information about people being detained. We have not gotten complete results, but we are pushing for complete transparency. We are getting widespread reports that people who fall far outside the full scope of the executive orders, with no connection to any of the identified countries, are being detained for hours. An Australian author, who has written several books and has no connection to other countries, was detained for hours. Muhammad Ali, Jr., who is a U.S. citizen, was detained for hours and asked about his religion. The Ninth Circuit, in its decision, expressed concern about this very issue—the Trump administration’s ability to uniformly enforce the court’s opinion.

What advice do you have for lawyers who want to get more involved in this issue?

There are a range of activities to get involved in. Various organizations are providing “train the trainer” events for people to be able to provide “know your rights” trainings. Additionally, there is a real need for pro bono assistance among your local legal service providers. There’s also a need to verify what’s been happening on the ground. We need to know what experiences people are having, need to verify information in real time, and need to figure out how to communicate that information.

We saw an organic response to the first executive order, with people rushing to the airports immediately after it was issued. Attorneys and community members alike should continue staying involved. Meet with your member of Congress, go to public town hall events, and join collective efforts to create accountability for your local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) offices. Pay particular attention to schools, hospitals, places of worship and other sensitive shelters. I would also encourage interested attorneys to get involved in their local communities. Push for good policies with local law enforcement and local school boards, and think about joining local boards as well.

Finally, If you know anyone who has been detained by immigration officials, NILC is collecting their stories here. For those who want to learn more about immigration law, this comprehensive resource compiled by several immigrant rights organizations is a useful tool.

To see Avideh in action, watch her CLE program, Accessing the Social Safety Net: Expanding Economic Justice for Immigrant Families. You can also find out more about President Trump’s executive orders here.