A federal judge in Virginia is weighing a request from the Muslim civil rights group for an even broader injunction against the travel ban than what other judges have imposed. The federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked the vast majority of Trump’s revised ban, which would restrict immigration by the refugees and from six majority-Muslim countries.

On Tuesday, lawyers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked a judge in Alexandria to issue an injunction against the entire executive order. Attorney Gadeir Abbas said that section 3 of the order, which affects how the visa applicants can seek waivers, remains in the force and should be blocked as well.

As a whole, he said that, the purpose of the executive order is a bare and base desire to disfavor Islam and also disfavor Muslims. He also argued that as long as any part of the executive order remains in effect, Muslims are improperly stigmatized in violation of First Amendment protections for religious freedom.

The acting Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler, who previously served as an attorney for the Trump campaign, acknowledged that the provisions of section 3 are being built in to the current process for reviewing the visa applications, he also said that the provisions have no practical effect on how the government issues visas.

Judge Anthony Trenga questioned whether the Section 3 was in force at all, one reading of the order is that Section 3 merely allows the individuals to seek waivers if they were denied a visa under Section 2, that has been placed on hold by the judges in Maryland and Hawaii.

But Abbas said that the order gives new, stricter guidance to the Customs and Border Protection agents that they should deny entry to the U.S. unless the applicant can prove, to the agent’s satisfaction, the denial would create an undue hardship for the traveler, among other conditions.

Virginia Man Identified In White House Bomb Threat

Trenga questioned throughout the hearing that whether there remains a need for him to issue a preliminary injunction, as the actions already taken by the Hawaii and Maryland judges. Abbas argued that the injunction might be needed if the other judges orders are rescinded or reversed.

The order issued by the Hawaii judge is the broadest, but only takes the form of a temporary restraining order, which can be rescinded at the subsequent hearing. The Maryland order is not as sweeping, but comes in the form of a preliminary injunction, which is expected to remain in place until merits of the case are decided at the trial.

Lawyers for Hawaii filed a motion on Tuesday arguing that the temporary restraining order in that case should be converted to a preliminary injunction. A hearing is scheduled for March 29th.

The judge in Alexandria told to both sides at the hearing that he will issue a written order at a later date.

Mrudula Duddempudi.