Trump asks US Supreme Court to block federal judge's expansion of relatives exempt from travel ban
The administration of President Donald Trump has filed a motion with the Supreme Court to block a federal judge's ruling that expanded the list of relatives that are exempted from the travel ban.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu issued a ruling exempting grandparents and other relatives of U.S. citizens from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from acquiring visas under Trump's travel ban.
Following the ruling, the the State Department sent a memo updating the definition of "close family" that are exempt from the ban. According to Reuters, the memo stated that "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, and cousins" are eligible for visas.
In a court filing on Friday, the Trump administration asked the justices to overturn Watson's ruling, arguing that the expansion encompasses "virtually all family members," and "reads the term 'close' out of the (Supreme) Court's decision."
The Supreme Court has asked the State of Hawaii to respond to the Trump administration's motion to block Watson's ruling by Tuesday at noon.
The high court ruled last month that a scaled-back version of Trump's travel ban could proceed, but it could not be enforced against refugees who have a "bona fide relationship" with people in the U.S.
The Trump administration had included parents, spouses, fiances, sons daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law or siblings from its definition of "close family," but it previously excluded grandparents and grandchildren, along with brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.
In his ruling, Watson rejected the administration's distinction, arguing that grandparents are the "epitome of close family members."
Apart from the expanding the list of relatives, Watson also ruled that any refugees with ties to resettlement agencies in the U.S. that are preparing to receive them should be exempt from the travel ban.
Refugee resettlement agencies have stated that their relationship with refugees who have already been approved to travel to the U.S. should count as "bona fide" under the Supreme Court decision. But lawyers for the Trump administration disagreed with the argument, saying the State Department acts as an intermediary until the refugee actually arrives in the U.S.
Watson sided with the refugee resettlement agencies, arguing that the assurances from the agencies meet the requirements set by the Supreme Court.
"An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court's touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations," Watson wrote, according to NPR. "Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that," he added.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the fall over the constitutionality of the travel ban.