The ruling was the first since the ban was allowed to be partially implemented.<\/b>
\nAttorney General Jeff Sessions vowed Friday to appeal a federal judge’s ruling late Thursday that the Trump administration\u2019s implementation of its travel ban impacting citizens of six Muslim-majority nations is \u201cunduly restrictive, \u201d and that the government\u2019s definition of \u201cclose familial relationship\u201d contradicts the Supreme Court order that exempted visa applicants who could establish a \u201cbona fide\u201d relationship with citizens or entities of the United States.
U. S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson of Hawaii, who in March was the first to issue a nationwide injunction against the second iteration of the travel ban, rebuked the administration\u2019s position that created a narrow list of \u201cfamily relations that it claims satisfies\u201d the standards laid out by the Supreme Court.
The administration\u2019s interpretation, Watson wrote, «represents the antithesis of common sense.»
In a statement Friday, Sessions expressed disappointment at the decision, invoking the administration’s partial success in overturning Watson’s earlier ruling on the ban.
«The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation, » said Sessions.
Judge Watson\u2019s order means that the administration must now significantly expand the list of family relationships that would allow visa applicants to get around the travel ban.
Following the Supreme Court decision in June, the government had provided guidance to U. S. consular officials worldwide, with a list of exemptions that included only parents, parents-in-law, spouses, children, fianc\u00e9\/\u00e9es, adult sons and daughters, sons- and daughters-in-law, siblings and step-relationships.
The State of Hawaii challenged that interpretation as too narrow — and Judge Watson agreed — entering a revised preliminary injunction that prohibits the administration from applying the travel ban to aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, grandchildren and grandparents.
\u201cCommon sense, \u201d Watson wrote, \u201cdictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government\u2019s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.\u201d
Critics of the administration\u2019s policy, which some had derisively dubbed a \u201cGrandma Ban, \u201d hailed Watson\u2019s decision.
\u201cThe federal district court clarified for the country what almost every grandchild, niece, and extended family member has long known: that grandmothers, aunts and other family members are invaluable members of our families and communities, and should be treated as such, \u201d wrote Karen Tumlin, the Legal Director of the National Immigration Law Center in a statement.
Watson also ruled that the government cannot exclude would-be refugees who have assurances from a resettlement agency within the United States, even if their admission would result in exceeding the 50,000 annual cap of refugees outlined in the executive order .
In advance of Watson\u2019s ruling, the Trump administration indicated that it may challenge any order that went against them. The Department of Justice asked the judge, if he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, to hold enforcing it in order to avoid \u201csignificant confusion as the government continues to implement the Executive Order consistent with court orders.\u201d
Watson declined to hold off on his decision, so the order was effective immediately.
Sessions’ announcement Friday that the Justice Department will go directly to the Supreme Court will likely come in the form of a request for clarification of its order on the travel ban, as was outlined in court filings last week.<\/p>\n

\n

Similarity rank: 25<\/div>\n

Sentiment rank: -0.2<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n