Donald Trump loses appeal on relatives covered by travel ban
San Francisco: President Donald Trump suffered another setback on his embattled travel ban, with an appeals panel leaving in a place a lower-court ruling that forces the administration to accept people with grandparents, cousins and other relatives in the US.
Thursday’s decision by a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court further frustrates the administration as it heads toward an 10 October showdown before the US Supreme Court over the broader legality of the president’s executive order temporarily barring travellers from six mostly Muslim nations.
The Ninth Circuit panel also said Trump was wrong in how he interpreted an earlier order by the high court affecting thousands of refugees seeking entry into the US.
“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,” a Justice Department spokeswoman said in an email.
The Supreme Court on 26 June let the government enforce a limited travel ban, saying the US had to admit at least some close relatives though the court didn’t list all the relationships that qualified. The Trump administration then agreed to let people enter if they had a parent, spouse, fiance, child, sibling, son- or daughter-in-law, or a parent-in-law in the country.
One of the travel ban’s challengers, Hawaii attorney general Doug Chin, contended the criteria for close relatives was too restrictive. He argued that people with grandparents, cousins and aunts and uncles in the US qualify as having “bona fide” connections and should be excluded from the ban on travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Chin also challenged Trump’s interpretation of the Supreme Court order as giving him authority to exclude refugees even if a resettlement agency had promised that it would provide basic services for them.
The refugee suspension was expected to affect thousands of people covered by what are known as “assurances,” formal promises by resettlement agencies to provide housing and other necessities. Advocates say those people have been thoroughly vetted and don’t pose a national security threat.
The Ninth Circuit judges said in Thursday’s ruling that the Honolulu federal judge who sided with Chin was right on both counts.
“The district court carefully and correctly balanced the hardships and the equitable considerations as directed by the Supreme Court,” the panel wrote.
Chin said the appeals court ruling “keeps families together.”
“It gives vetted refugees a second chance,” he said in a statement. “The Trump administration keeps taking actions with no legal basis. We will keep fighting back.”
Trump’s 6 March executive order said the 90-day travel ban and 120-day refugee ban would give officials time to assess US vetting procedures and would address an “unacceptably high” risk that terrorists could slip into the country. Lower courts had blocked the ban, saying Trump overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally targeted Muslims. Bloomberg
- Opening bell: Asian markets open flat; OMCs, Godrej Consumer in news
- Volume relief for Gujarat Pipavav Port
- Trai recommended spectrum caps will accommodate emerging oligopoly
- Despite falling interest rates, debt in distressed firms still very high
- Stock market investors couldn’t care less about demonetisation