"See you in court," a defiant President Donald Trump tweeted last month after a panel of federal judges upheld a stay of his ban on travelers and refugees from a set of majority-Muslim countries.
Team Trump, saying national security was at stake, regrouped and issued a revised travel ban on Monday, banking on changes that would fortify the directive against legal challenge.
That didn't last long: On Friday, a Wisconsin judge ruled Trump's new executive order couldn't be used to block a Syrian man from bringing his wife and three-year-old child to the U.S. from war-ravaged Aleppo.
"The ruling likely is the first by a judge since Trump issued a revised travel ban on Monday, according to a spokesman for the Washington state attorney general, who has led states challenging the ban," the Associated Press reported.
The Muslim man, who was granted asylum after facing persecution in Syria, has been trying since last year to secure government permission to have his wife and daughter join him in America, the AP reported. His name was not revealed out of fear for his family's safety.
According to Politico, U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued a temporary restraining order at the request of plaintiff "John Doe" after concluding he had "presented some likelihood of success on the merits and that he is at great risk of suffering irreparable harm" if the order were denied.
Conley's ruling extends through March 21 and only applies to the family involved in the case.
However, the Syrian man's lawyer, Vincent Levy, was quoted by Politico as saying the outcome was "another indication that [Trump's] order, even as revised, exceeds the scope of authority granted to the president and that it's unconstitutional."
At least four states — Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington — have already joined a lawsuit challenging Trump's revised travel ban. The attorney general of Hawaii has also filed suit.
Separately, on Friday, the Washington Post reported that U.S. District Judge James Robart of Washington state said that for procedural reasons, he could not immediately rule on whether his order halting implementation of the original Trump travel ban also applied to the updated version.