Travel-ban appeal goes to high court

Remigio Civitarese
Luglio 17, 2017

But, the administration gained partial satisfaction in June when the Supreme Court ruled that it could proceed with its plan to prohibit the entry of some people from countries deemed risky, while still allowing visits by people with "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in United States".

The Court in June reinstated President Donald J. Trump's travel ban until oral arguments were heard in October, 2017.

In a court filing on Friday, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday's decision by a USA district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

But U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, a leftwing ideologue appointed by Barack Obama, decided again to interfere with the travel ban after Hawaii Attorney General Chin filed the request. 30, a ceiling it reached last week.

The Supreme Court told the side challenging the travel ban to file a response to that request by Tuesday. The DOJ has also asked the Supreme Court to clarify that original ruling.

"Once again, we are faced with a situation in which a single federal district court has undertaken by a nationwide injunction to micromanage decisions of the co-equal executive branch related to our national security", Sessions said. The two filings overlap, and the appeals court could defer action until it sees what the Supreme Court does.

With this new decision from the federal judge, thousands of travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, as well as refugees seeking asylum in the US, now have a chance to enter the country.

The judge unilaterally made a decision to expand the interpretation to include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and siblings-in-law.

The Trump Administration further interpreted the phrase "close familial relationship" to include fiancé (e) s and parents- and children-in-law.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who sought the broader definition, said Thursday's ruling "makes clear that the US government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit".

He charged that the lower court had "improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch at a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court".

"Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough", Chin said.

Altre relazioniGrafFiotech

Discuti questo articolo

Segui i nostri GIORNALE