Yes, but it might be difficult.
There are only 2 ways to overturn an executive order issued by a President.
1. Through Congress
Congress can pass laws to override an Executive Order, however the laws are subjected to the President's veto.
Congress can pass laws to override executive orders, those laws are subject to presidential veto. And even if the Republican-controlled House and Senate somehow decided to defy their party's own president, it's just not all that difficult to imagine Trump exercising his veto power.
(excerpts from this article by Bustle, emphasis mine)
But Congress can veto a President's veto, known as a congressional override. This can be achieved by having two-thirds of the members of each chamber of Congress to vote in favor of the override.
This has happened before, most recently Congress voted to override Obama's veto on a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.
So,
since Presidents can veto laws passed by Congress, Trump can still veto the law and it would require 2/3 majority in Congress to override the veto.
2. Through the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court can declare the order as unconstitutional which has happened before.
There is another way, though. The Supreme Court can declare an executive order to be unconstitutional, which has a rather strong record of precedents.
Recent history, for instance, saw the Supreme Court block Obama's executive order to delay deportations of certain undocumented immigrants. Reaching further back, the Supreme Court actually struck down President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, an executive order the president issued during the Civil War. His government ignored the Supreme Court sanction.
(excerpts from this article by Bustle, emphasis mine)
So,
the plausible way would be for the Supreme Court to rule his order as unconstitutional. But opinion has been divided over whether his order does violate the US constitution.
An article published by The Guardian describes if it is unconstitutional:
Legal scholars have been divided for months about whether Trump’s proposals would hold under the constitution. Congress and the White House share authority to decide eligibility for citizenship and entry into the country, and the supreme court has never directly confronted whether religion could stand as a valid reason to exclude some people over others. Trump’s orders do not explicitly name Islam but clearly target Muslim-majority countries, meaning it could test the constitution’s guarantees of religion and due process, as well as the president’s authority over immigration in general.
(emphasis mine)
And an article by Quartz:
That puts the order in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which explicitly forbids the government from preferential treatment of any religion over another, says David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. He cites the 1982 decision known as Larson v. Valente, in which the US Supreme Court confirmed that “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”
(emphasis mine)
Also, a commentary by The New York Times states:
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
(emphasis mine)
