The administration asked the Supreme Court to lift restrictions on the travel ban
It is returning to the court to overturn lower court rulings
A federal judge in Hawaii ruled against the federal government on two issues in July
WASHINGTON, U.S. - In a bid to stem refugee flow and return to the fight to lift restrictions on President Donald Trump’s travel ban, the Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.
On Monday, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to place a stay on the part of last week's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.
In its opinion, the 9th Circuit also said that the government could not ban grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S. from entering the country.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said in his request to the Supreme Court that part of the ruling is “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.
Wall wrote, “Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government.”
He further noted, “Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to 'burden' a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.”
Wall has reportedly argued that allowing the 9th Circuit's ruling to go forward would force the government to “change course” on orders it began implementing on June 29.
He pointed out that it would invite “precisely the type of uncertainty and confusion that the government has worked diligently to avoid.”
In June this year, the Supreme Court handed Trump a partial win when it allowed the administration to temporarily block people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S.
However, the court carved out an exemption for people with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the country.
In March, when the battle had just reached courts and had met its first revolt, the federal district court judge in Hawaii blocked Trump’s order.
Th judge then weakened it in July by including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S and refugees working with resettlement agencies in the definition of what constitutes a bona fide relationship.
Trump’s travel ban, that blocks travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days was the first controversial executive order signed by the President and had caused massive outrage across the country.
Now, months after the case reached the Supreme Court, on October 10 the top court is set to hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the ban.
If anyone remembers anything about The Cloverfield Paradox 10 years from now, it will be the manner in which it was dropped, completely unexpectedly, on Netflix following the Super Bowl with a single trailer during the game announcing its existence ...
MANILA, Philippines - In the latest of many wisecracks that left rights advocates and social welfare groups outraged, the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte suggested on Saturday that Filipinos a ...