Donald Trump’s travel ban.
In a filing on Friday, the Trump
administration asked the nine Supreme Court justices to overturn Thursday’s
decision by a federal judge in Hawaii that placed limits on the measure
temporarily barring refugees and other travellers from six predominantly Muslim
countries.
Trump’s March 6 executive order bars visitors
from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and refugees for
120 days. The administration insists it is necessary to keep violent extremists
out of the country.
After a series of judicial roadblocks in the
lower courts, the administration scored a partial victory in June, when the
Supreme Court ruled that it could proceed with the ban, though people with a
“bona fide relationship” to a US person or entity were exempt.
The ruling, which capped months of legal
wrangling, left unclear the question of just who had such a “credible claim.”
The Trump administration provided a list
defining the category as including parents, spouses, children, sons- and
daughters-in-law, siblings and step- or half-siblings.
But federal Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii
ruled that the administration’s criteria unfairly excluded grandparents and
grandchildren, expanding the list of “bona fide” relatives to include them,
along with brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and
cousins of people in the United States.
Watson’s “interpretation empties the (Supreme)
Court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just ‘close’ family members,
but virtually all family members,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said
in the administration’s filing.
However, arguing — before a panel of justices
aged 49 to 84 — that grandparents and grandchildren are not “close” relatives
may be an uphill battle.
And it was unclear how quickly the Supreme
Court — now in summer recess but able to act on emergency motions — might
respond, and when or if the expanded terms set by the Hawaii judge might take
effect. If they do, thousands of potential travellers could be affected.
– ‘Antithesis of common sense’ –
In his ruling, Watson said the government’s
distinction of what constitutes “close” family was “the antithesis of common
sense.”
The judge also ruled that the government could
not exclude refugees who have assurances of a placement by a resettlement
agency in the United States.
But the Justice Department said in its filing
with the Supreme Court that Watson’s decision as concerns refugees would render
the related portion of the high court’s decision “effectively meaningless.”
The original ban, announced days after Trump
became president on January 20, was successfully challenged in lower courts on
the grounds that it overstepped Trump’s presidential authority and
discriminated against Muslims in violation of the US Constitution. A revised
version also did not pass legal muster.
Judges in lower courts had cited Trump’s
repeated statements during the presidential campaign that he intended to ban
Muslims from entering the United States.
Oral arguments are due to take place after the
court returns for a new session in October over whether the ban violates the US
Constitution.
0 Comments