Judge rejects Hawaii bid to exempt grandparents from Trump’s travel ban
Grandparents and other family members of the United States are not exempt from travel ban President Trump, a federal judge has effectively ruled on Thursday, when an attempt was denied to reduce the application in order to prevent citizens Of six predominantly Muslim countries.
US District Judge Derrick K. Watson wrote that “we do not usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court,” and if those pursuing the ban were seeking relief, they must take their claims there.
This means that the government, at least for now, can use the travel ban to block citizens of affected countries if grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, stepfathers, brothers, sisters in the people of the States United act. Officials can also block refugees with official verification from the resettlement agency.
The administration had wanted to keep these people and thought that a recent decision by the Supreme Court to partially lift the lower courts’ freeze on the travel ban allowed them to do so.
But those who continued the ban did not agree and asked Watson to intervene – which he refused to do.
[The travel ban goes into effect, while the State Department defines the “immediate family”]
“Because the plaintiffs have asked for clarification on the changes in the June 26, 2017 written by the Supreme Court, clarification must be sought there, not here,” Watson said.
Neal Katyal, a lawyer for those who defy the ban, said on Twitter that the ruling did not offer any decision on “controversy fund” but simply said it was for the Supreme Court to decide.
The Supreme Court held, in the last month, the government could begin to apply the measure, but not to those who have “a credible claim of a good faith relationship” with a person or entity in the United States.
The court offers only limited guidance on the type of relationship that would qualify. Family relations “family” compriront, said the court, as well as links such as a job or a letter of acceptance from the school that were “formal, documented and formed in the normal course.”
The government has put the measure in force June 29 to suspend the refugee program and ban the issuance of new visas for residents of Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Syria without relations with the United States. But the opponents of the ban, the interpretation of the administration that had a connection was too narrow.
The administration said it would allow the six affected countries, the parents, stepparents, siblings, spouses, children, sons and daughters, sons and daughters of these people who are already present to enter the United States. (Officials initially wanted to keep them engaged, but later they stopped.)
Also forbidden are grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, cousins, brothers, and sisters. And the government also said they would prevent the refugees who had a formal assurance from the resettlement agency.
[What the decision to prohibit travel in the Supreme Court means]
Hawaii, which had initially continued the ban, opposed the court, asking Watson to clarify that these people could not be blocked.
“The government has no discretion to ignore the court order as it sees fit,” said state attorneys.
The Government recalled that these were guidelines on who counts as close family members according to their interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Lawyers at the Department of Justice argued that the Supreme Court had stated that all persons having relations with the United States should not be allowed.
“As the Supreme Court has given instructions to all relationships with a person in the United States, they are not sufficient to fall outside the living room and in the context of the injunction,” Justice Department lawyers wrote. “In fact, not even all family relationships are sufficient, but that” close family relationship “is necessary.