A judge in Hawaii has put US President Donald Trump's revamped travel ban on hold, preventing the executive order from going into effect.

US District Judge Derrick Watson ruled that the state of Hawaii had established a strong likelihood that "irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief."

A judge in Maryland said he also might issue an emergency order in advance of the ban, which is due to come into effect from midnight EDT (4am Irish time)
State attorneys general and refugee resettlement agencies across the United States have filed several lawsuits asking courts to issue emergency stays on Mr Trump's executive order.
The order was signed on 6 March 6 after an initial, broader ban was suspended by federal courts.
The revised order temporarily bars entry to the United States of most refugees as well as travellers from six Muslim-majority countries. The Republican president has said the policy is critical for national security.

Mr Trump signed the first order a week after his 20 January inauguration. It temporarily banned travellers from seven mostly Muslim countries in addition to most refugees and took effect immediately, causing chaos and protests at airports across the country and around the globe.
After the ban was targeted by more than two dozen lawsuits arguing it discriminated against Muslims and violated the US Constitution, it was struck down by a federal judge in Seattle in a ruling upheld by a US appeals court.
The White House went back to the drawing board and narrowed its scope.
The new order bars citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia,Sudan and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, but Iraqis are no longer on the list.

Refugees are still barred for 120 days, but an indefinite ban on all refugees from Syria was dropped.
The revised ban also excludes legal permanent residents and existing visa holders. It provides a series of waivers for various categories of immigrants with ties to the United States.

The government has maintained in court that the changes resolve any legal issues with the original order.

Detractors say the intent behind both Mr Trump's first and second orders was to discriminate against Muslims.
Colleen Sinzdak arguing at the Honolulu hearing for the state of Hawaii said there was "more than ample evidence this ban was motivated by religious animus." She pointed to Mr Trump's promise during his election campaign of "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
The Trump administration has disputed that allegation,saying many Muslim-majority countries are not included in the ban.
The text of the order does not mention Islam and the government has said the courts should only look at the actual document, not outside comments by Mr Trump or his aides.
The judge at the Hawaii hearing said the language of the new order did not give "any particular religious feeling or connotation."