by appeals court
A federal appeals court handed the Trump
administration another defeat over its revised
travel ban Thursday, ruling that
grandparents, cousins and similarly close
relations of people already in the U.S. should
not be prevented from coming to the country.
The unanimous decision by the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling by a
federal judge in Hawaii who found the
administration’s view too strict.
“Stated simply, the government does not offer
a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-
law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the
Supreme Court’s prior reasoning, but a
grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
nephew, or cousin is not,” the ruling said.
The appeals panel wrote that under typical
court rules, its ruling would not take effect for
at least 52 days. But in this instance, the
judges said, many refugees would be "gravely
imperiled" by such a delay, so the decision will
take effect in five days.
"Refugees' lives remain in vulnerable limbo
during the pendency of the Supreme Court's
stay," they wrote. "Refugees have only a
narrow window of time to complete their travel,
as certain security and medical checks expire
and must then be reinitiated."
The Justice Department said it would appeal.
"The Supreme Court has stepped in to correct
these lower courts before, and we will now
return to the Supreme Court to vindicate the
executive branch's duty to protect the nation,"
the agency said in a statement.
The Supreme Court said in June that President
Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on visitors from
Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen
can be enforced pending arguments scheduled
for October. But the justices said it should not
apply to visitors who have a “bona fide
relationship” with people or organizations in
the U.S., such as close family ties or a job
offer.
The government interpreted such family
relations to include immediate family members
and in-laws, but not grandparents, cousins,
aunts and uncles. The judge in Hawaii
overruled that interpretation, expanding the
definition of who can enter the country to the
other categories of relatives.
The appeals court also upheld the Hawaii
judge's ruling that refugees from those
countries who had been accepted by a
resettlement agency should not be subject to
the ban.
Lawyers for the government and the state of
Hawaii, which challenged the revised travel
ban, argued the case in Seattle last week.
Deputy assistant attorney general Hashim
Mooppan ran into tough questions as soon as he
began arguing the government’s case, with
Judge Ronald Gould asking him from “what
universe” the administration took its position
that grandparents don’t constitute a close
family relationship.
Judge Richard Paez similarly questioned why
an in-law would be allowed in, but not a
grandparent.
“Could you explain to me what’s significantly
different between a grandparent and a
mother-in-law, father-in-law?” Paez asked.
“What is so different about those two
categories? One is in and one is out.”
Mooppan conceded that people can have a
profound connection to their grandparents
and other extended relatives, but from a legal
perspective, the administration had to draw
the line somewhere to have a workable ban
based largely on definitions used in other
aspects of immigration law, he said.
Hawaii is also one of 15 states that sued the
Trump administration Wednesday over its
plans to end the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program that protects young
immigrants from deportation.
"Today's decision by the 9th Circuit keeps
families together. It gives vetted refugees a
second chance," state Attorney General
Douglas Chin said in a statement. "The Trump
administration keeps taking actions with no
legal basis. We will keep fighting back."
No comments:
Post a Comment