Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

[Stylteralmaldo]

WASHINGTON—A Hawaii judge late Thursday ordered a nationwide loosening of President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on U.S. entry for some travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, ruling the administration’s strict approach contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The decision is a fresh legal blow for the president just two weeks after a Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to implement its travel ban against refugees and foreign nationals from six countries who have no connection to the U.S.

The justices said Mr. Trump’s administration couldn’t enforce the ban against people with bona fide relationships to people or organizations in the U.S. Days after, the Trump administration adopted a narrow view of what relationships counted for an exemption from the ban.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which is defending the ban, had no immediate comment on the court order.

Administration officials said visa applicants and refugees with U.S.-based spouses, children, parents and siblings would be allowed in. But those with only lesser ties—such as grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and cousins—would be subject to the ban.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii took issue with that interpretation. He issued an order late Thursday, which applies nationwide, that says people with broader family ties are also exempt from the ban.

“The Government’s definition of close familial relationship is not only not compelled by the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision, but contradicts it,” the judge wrote.

More:
wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-orders-loosening-of-trump-travel-ban-1500004506

 

[Reuben_J]

It is to be expected, coming from this judge. As long as we have judges who want to frustrate the work of the President in any ways, President Trump will find it hard to smoothly implement his policy.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It is to be expected, coming from this judge. As long as we have judges who want to frustrate the work of the President in any ways, President Trump will find it hard to smoothly implement his policy.

How can a Hawaii judge have any say after a Supreme Court ruling?

 

[dvdjs]

How can a Hawaii judge have any say after a Supreme Court ruling?

The SCOTUS required exceptions to the ban, but spoke of them only in broad terms.
Trump took a narrow interpretation of the exceptions.

Administration officials said visa applicants and refugees with U.S.-based spouses, children, parents and siblings would be allowed in. But those with only lesser ties—such as grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and cousins—would be subject to the ban.

This judge is ruling that Trump’s interpretation is too narrow to be compatible with the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The SCOTUS required exceptions to the ban, but spoke of them only in broad terms.
Trump took a narrow interpretation of the exceptions.

This judge is ruling that Trump’s interpretation is too narrow to be compatible with the SCOTUS ruling.

Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[ProVobis]

It is to be expected, coming from this judge. As long as we have judges who want to frustrate the work of the President in any ways, President Trump will find it hard to smoothly implement his policy.

You mean his policy of banning because of religion?

 

[Jig_Saw]

It is NOT a travel ban! It is a temporary restriction so that the new administration can get things in order over the first 90 days of taking power.

 

[Theo520]

All this squabbling only applies to people who had Visa’s issued before Trump’s EO.

Since Trump issued it, the tap has turned down on new visa issues I expect… I searched but couldn’t find any recent news report on what they are doing to the vetting process. It’s the part of the story that screams out for good investigative journalism.

 

[FrDavid96]

Obviously, this federal judge is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that over-ruled him in the first place.

Would someone please explain to this federal judge that he does not have the authority to over-turn the Supreme Court.

 

[FrDavid96]

You mean his policy of banning because of religion?

Oh please…

90% of the world’s Muslims are completely unaffected.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Oh please…

90% of the world’s Muslims are completely unaffected.

It only affects Muslims from countries that haven’t attacked Americans.

 

[FrDavid96]

It only affects Muslims from countries that haven’t attacked Americans.

It affects people from countries that do not have reliable information on their own citizens criminal pasts or lack thereof.

If their own governments are unable to verify their identities, then it’s perfectly reasonable for the U.S. to exercise some caution before admitting them into our borders.

 

[dvdjs]

Obviously, this federal judge is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that over-ruled him in the first place.

Would someone please explain to this federal judge that he does not have the authority to over-turn the Supreme Court.

Errant nonsense. Please see post 4.
Btw, this was, in effect, predicted by some of the SCOTUS judges, who criticized the the courts ruling for being vague on the point of relationships.

See the separate opinion of Thomas, Alioto, and Gorsuch.

 

[johnnykins]

Obviously, this federal judge is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision that over-ruled him in the first place.

Would someone please explain to this federal judge that he does not have the authority to over-turn the Supreme Court.

I think someone needs to explain to you that the judge is acting well within his power to interpret the Supreme Court’s language. Judges do that all the time. Just because a priest disagrees changes nothing…and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think someone needs to explain to you that the judge is acting well within his power to interpret the Supreme Court’s language. Judges do that all the time. Just because a priest disagrees changes nothing…and makes clear his own lack of knowledge in the secular legal realm.

He isn’t interpreting. He’s changing.

And please refrain from further ad hominems against me. The fact that I am a priest has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Errant nonsense. Please see post 4.
Btw, this was, in effect, predicted by some of the SCOTUS judges, who criticized the the courts ruling for being vague on the point of relationships.

See the separate opinion of Thomas, Alioto, and Gorsuch.

The court ruled “For individuals, a close familial relationship is required”

The fed judge in Hawaii effectively over-ruled that by allowing other than close familial relationship.

Page 12 Nos. 16–1436 (16A1190) and 16–1540 (16A1191)

Just because two people’s great grandfathers might have drank from the same well doesn’t mean they have a “close familial relationship.” (sarcasm)

In the Middle East, anyone can claim almost anyone else as a “cousin.”

 

[johnnykins]

He isn’t interpreting. He’s changing.

And please refrain from further ad hominems against me. The fact that I am a priest has nothing to do with the conversation.

He is most certainly interpreting.

As to ad hominems, the fact that on a Catholic Board you advertise you are a priest, and all that goes along with it, invites pointing out that it has nothing to do with this.

 

[josie_L]

Errant nonsense. Please see post 4.
Btw, this was, in effect, predicted by some of the SCOTUS judges, who criticized the the courts ruling for being vague on the point of relationships.

See the separate opinion of Thomas, Alioto, and Gorsuch.

Yet this is the SAME judge who ruled the initial temporary travel ban as unconstitutional?? Not to belabour the point much, but the Trump administration will be appealing the travel ban ruling:

Trump administration to appeal travel ban ruling to Supreme Court

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented President Donald Trump’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

Sessions said in a statement that the administration would “reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court” in a bid to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

“By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court,” Sessions Said.

theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-administration-to-appeal-travel-ban-ruling-to-supreme-court/article35694836/

 

[josie_L]

He is most certainly interpreting.

As to ad hominems, the fact that on a Catholic Board you advertise you are a priest, and all that goes along with it, invites pointing out that it has nothing to do with this.

You. Were. Being. Rude.

 

[AnnArbor]

Errant nonsense. Please see post 4.
Btw, this was, in effect, predicted by some of the SCOTUS judges, who criticized the the courts ruling for being vague on the point of relationships.

See the separate opinion of Thomas, Alioto, and Gorsuch.

Arrant.

And federal judges routinely interpret the scope of SCOTUS decisions.