DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Block Hawaii Judge's Travel-Ban Ruling

Within hours of President Donald Trump’s return to the US following his Bastille Day visit to Paris as a guest of French President Emmanuel Macron, the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to block a ruling by a federal judge in Hawaii that seeks to expand who can be let into the US under the narrower terms of the Trump travel ban.

The ruling, filed by Honolulu-based US District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday, found that the administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision to allow anyone with a "bona fide" relationship with US persons is too restrictive. Watson, an Obama appointee, is the same judge who blocked the administration’s second travel ban back in March, setting in motion a chain of events that led to the Supreme Court's ruling to allow a "narrower" version of the ban to take effect until it has an opportunity to hear oral arguments on the order’s constitutionality when it reconvenes in October.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Court could swiftly issue a ruling accepting, or denying, Watson’s claims about the State Department's interpretation even though the justices recently decamped for a three-moth recess. However, whether the court will choose to act now remains unclear.

As a reminder, Trump’s revised order calls for a 90-day ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, while also suspending the admission of refugees temporarily. The Supreme Court overturned Watson’s decision to block the order while stipulating that any travelers with a “bona fide” connection to individuals or institutions in the US could not be turned away.  

Here’s a quick recap of travel-ban related news from the past two days, courtesy of WSJ:

“The latest chapter in the fast-moving saga began Thursday evening in Honolulu, where U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ruled that the Trump administration’s recent implementation of its ban contradicted the interim rules put in place by the Supreme Court on June 26.

 

Mr. Trump’s restrictions, which cited terrorism concerns, imposed a 90-day ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, while also suspending the admission of refugees temporarily. Last month’s Supreme Court’s decision allowed the GOP president to enforce the ban against people with no ties to the U.S., but not against people who have close connections to family or institutions in the U.S.

 

Mr. Trump’s administration took a narrow reading of who qualified for the Supreme Court’s exemption to the ban. But Judge Watson, an appointee of Mr. Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, ruled Thursday that the government must admit a broader class of people than it wanted. That includes extended family members like grandparents, aunts and uncles, as well as a wider class of refugees.

 

The judge found that the Trump administration’s restricted view of who counts as close family ‘represents the antithesis of common sense.’ The administration said its approach was grounded solidly in how close family relationships are defined in portions of federal immigration law.”

Following the SC’s decision late last month, the State Department on June 30 issued a set of “clarifications," relying on a restrictive interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Specifically, Watson has taken issue with one diktat that seeks to answer what represents a “bona fide” family connection. The Trump administration has sought to limit it to the immediate family only – siblings, parents, fiancees and spouses.

But Watson broadened this to include “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons already in the US.”

US District Judge Derrick Watson

Watson has also sought to circumvent the administration's ban on refugees by ruling that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

In the court filing, the Justice Department said Watson's ruling on refugees would make the Supreme Court's decision on that part of the executive order "effectively meaningless,” Reuters reports. Watson’s ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.
 

Comments

847328_3527 vato poco Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:03 Permalink

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
How Polish TV Covers Islamic Attacks And Immigration In Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WHgGnyHtM

In reply to by vato poco

Yog Soggoth D Nyle Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:36 Permalink

Better yet, just give the island back to the natives and just keep a military base there. Then they decide who gets to stay. I am betting few who are not Hawaiian will be given that priveledge including Watkins. Zuckerburg ... head chopped off. Price of spam goes down because they can afford delicious island cattle. Bread still 8$ unless they allow ships to fly a flag of convenience. Lot's of possibilities if you think about it.

In reply to by D Nyle

silverer Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:39 Permalink

After the first jerk that pulls some crap after slipping through Hawaii because of that ruling, charge his ass with aiding and abetting a crime.

michigan independant Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:47 Permalink

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/04/the-long-march-through-the-institutions/ For these countries, he recommended a war of position. A war of position is one in which one first identifies “switch-points of social power” and then one seeks to peacefully take control of those switch-points. The switch-points all relate to the field of cultural values – in particular, the arts and education. The most important switch-points of power are positions like school principal, university professor, government policy maker, education department bureaucrat and journalist. In 1967, Rudi Dutschke, a German student leader, reformulated Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy of cultural hegemony with the phrase, “The long march through the institutions.” Instead of a long military march, such as the one undertaken by the Chinese Marxist Maoist Tse-Tung, in the highly developed western countries the long march would be through the most culturally significant of our social institutions – that is, through schools, universities, courts, parliaments and through the media, through newspapers and television. Cultural Marxism is real and 94 percent completed some tally... wake up

G-R-U-N-T Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:50 Permalink

It's nice to see a President fight back especially for the people. As time goes on I believe there will be tons and tons of government bureaucratic corruption exposed.I believe Trump, directly or indirectly is one big cover pulling machine, as well he should be, the American people are thirsty to know the truth! Next up: Confidence in government will reach such a low that they will all but abandon the notion that they've been any good whatsoever both for society and the economy!

Deep In Vocal … (not verified) Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:48 Permalink

judges and men in suits dictate...... used to be the people....but america long gone....destroyed...absolutely everything fucking destroyed.....the human being is guilty.

Yog Soggoth Hongcha Sat, 07/15/2017 - 18:16 Permalink

The Certiorari Act of 1925 can only be undone by Congress. Before that all cases had to be heard by Constitutional law. Until that happens these planted activist judges can ignore the complaints of the people. Forget term limits for the others. Term limits for supreme judges are more important when you are talking about 9 people who control which cases are to be heard. Or they could just make more supreme judges to even things out and drop the workload.

In reply to by Hongcha

ronaldwilsonreagan (not verified) Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:49 Permalink

TRumptards Rejoyce, They can now shit again. All is well. Till it isn't. 

Boca Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:53 Permalink

Keep it up, this is exactly the kind of shit that won Trump the election, the left's complete disregard for laws and common sense.  The majority of people may not approve of everything Trump does, but the majority do understand this ban

LeftandRightareWrong Sat, 07/15/2017 - 16:56 Permalink

Can SCOTUS declare a lower court a vexatious litigant?denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant

ebworthen Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:01 Permalink

Activist "Judge" says:“grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons already in the US.”And in the fine print:"...acquaintances, Facebook friends, YouTube channel members, pen-pals, men with beards, Women in hijabs, people professing to hate President Trump, EU members, their dogs, cats, and their friend's hamster."

directaction Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:03 Permalink

The President and Congress pretend to control the USA.But really it's the federal judges. Whatever they say, think or feel is the real law in the USA.  

Fox-Scully Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:17 Permalink

We complain about congress with all the breaks and vacations, but what about the supreme court on a 3 month break!  Give me a break--no pun intended.

az_patriot (not verified) Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:22 Permalink

These idiot liberal judges that legislate from the bench and act as if they're more powerful than POTUS should be fired, disbarred, and spend the rest of their lives stocking shelves at Walmart.

blindfaith Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:41 Permalink

  I think the BEST idea is to have ALL immigration enter thru Hawaii, and require a 7 day cooling off period on the Waikiki Beach, lunch with this judge and a stay over in his house.  The overflow can camp out on his lawn. A modest proposal for a Democrat to consider sitting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  Perhaps some can even spent time at Zukerbergs or Ellison's house, I mean they have big acreage in Hawaii and endless money to entertain and or help these poor people get a head start in Amerika.

Blanco Diablo Sat, 07/15/2017 - 17:45 Permalink

The US have received 50,168 "Refugees" this year, Hawaii has taken in 3 whole refugees!First time in history of refugee program Presidential ceiling has been exceeded, This was completely unnecessary because the Trump Administration could have simply lowered the ceiling when they came in to office without any Executive Order.  The most they had to do was notify Congress!