WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday laid out its first detailed legal defense of President Trump’s revised travel ban, arguing in a court filing that the harms that opponents have cited are ‘‘speculative’’ and the president was acting within his authority.

Responding to a lawsuit from the state of Hawaii, Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump’s new executive order solved any possible legal problems that came with the first one, because it was narrower in scope and outlined a robust list of people who might be exempted.

‘‘Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the sweeping relief they seek,’’ Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Opponents of Trump’s executive order have asked federal judges in several states to block the administration from enforcing the directive.

The order, which suspends the United States refugee program and bars the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries, is set to take effect Thursday, unless a court intervenes.

Hawaii was the first state to sue over the revised directive, and a court hearing has been set for Wednesday in that case.

In a separate complaint filed Monday in US District Court in Seattle, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the new travel ban is unconstitutional and harms state residents, universities, and businesses, especially high-tech companies that rely on foreign workers.

Massachusetts joined Washington in the legal action, along with California, Maryland, New York, and Oregon. The states asked that a hearing be set for Tuesday in their request for an injunction.

Hawaii has argued that the new executive order, like the old one, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damages the state’s tourism industry.

Hawaii officials pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law’s application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the economic harms alleged by the state were ‘‘mere speculation’’ and that Elshikh’s mother-in-law had no reason to sue yet because she had not been denied a waiver to come into the country.

The new executive order, unlike the old, spelled out a list of people who might be granted exemptions, including those seeking to visit or live with family in the United States.

‘‘The order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions,’’ Justice Department lawyers wrote. ‘‘Among other things, therefore, plaintiffs cannot show that any individual whom they seek to protect is in imminent risk of being denied entry due to the order.’’

Hawaii will have to convince a judge that Trump’s ban is likely to be ultimately found unconstitutional and will impose immediate, irreparable harms unless it is stopped.