By: Zack Duvall
A motion by the Trump administration, filed on Friday, in an effort to block a U.S. district judge’s ruling, siding with the state of Hawaii, and issuing an order to limit the scope of the White House’s travel order pertaining to six middle eastern countries, has been granted by the Supreme Court.
The justices have given Hawaii until noon on Tuesday to respond to the filing by administration officials to have the court overturn U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling last Thursday that would greatly limit the scope of the restrictions implemented by the Justice Department, and would allow for thousands of additional refugees to be re-settled in the U.S. despite the executive order.
The Supreme Court had weighed in last month on the travel ban when the justices overturned multiple rulings from smaller courts that had impeded the implementation of the restrictions and the ability of the administration officials to enforce them. The court ruled that the travel ban could be enforced, but that people with a “bona fide” relationship to the U.S. mainland would be exempt from the White House’s order.
The Justice Department originally interpreted the meaning of “bona fide” to mean people who had siblings, spouses, children, and fiances, who were U.S. citizens. The department also put a cap on the number of refugees that re-settlement agencies could claim as “exempt” from the ban at 50,000 a year.
However, the recent ruling out of Hawaii last week looked to expand that list of “bona fide” relationships to include Grandparents, and to strike down the caps put in place on agencies that are actively working to assist foreign nationals apply for, and obtain entry into various refugee re-settlement programs.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments about whether or not the travel restrictions violate the U.S. constitution, or if the President as the legal authority to issues such orders and restrictions in the interest of national security beginning in the fall.