Lawyers for the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to let the government use the list it compiled in late June for deciding who can apply for a visa under the limited enforcement of the president's executive order on travel.

Only the Supreme Court "can definitively settle whether the government's reasonable implementation" of the justices' earlier ruling is faithful to it, Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing late Friday.

A federal judge in Hawaii ruled Thursday that grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law must be added to the list of close family members who can still get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force.

The State Department said on June 29 that only parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel to the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries.

It acted after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 26 that while portions of the travel ban could be enforced, people overseas "who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship" with a relative or organization in the United States would be exempt.

Responding to a motion by the state of Hawaii to broaden the exceptions, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said the State Department's definition of close family member "represents the antithesis of common sense." Grandparents, he said "are the epitome of close family members" and past Supreme Court decisions have defined the term much more broadly.

Watson also said the government wrongly determined that refugees would be subject to the ban even if they have an agreement with an American resettlement organization. Such an arrangement "is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding," he wrote. "Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that," he added.

But in asking the Supreme Court to put that ruling on hold, the Justice Department said Friday that the Hawaii judge's interpretation "encompasses not just close family members but virtually all family members" and reads the term "close" out of the Supreme Court's late June decision.

As for the refugee provision, the Justice Department said the only contract agreement is between the resettlement agency and the federal government, not between the agency and the refugee. Reading the ruling as the Hawaii judge does strips the Supreme Court's decision of any practical consequence, the administration lawyers said.

Watson declined to put his own ruling on hold while the Trump administration sought an appeal, but the government asked the Supreme Court to block it in order to prevent "needless uncertainty" about the executive order's enforcement until the justices can resolve the issues.

The Supreme Court will probably ask the Hawaii challengers to respond before deciding what to do. </s> Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed Friday to appeal a federal judge's ruling late Thursday that the Trump administration’s implementation of its travel ban impacting citizens of six Muslim-majority nations is “unduly restrictive,” and that the government’s definition of “close familial relationship” contradicts the Supreme Court order that exempted visa applicants who could establish a “bona fide” 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’s position that created a narrow list of “family relations that it claims satisfies” the standards laid out by the Supreme Court.

The administration’s 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.

The impact of the court decision

Judge Watson’s 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, fiancé/ées, 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.

“Common sense,” Watson wrote, “dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.”

Critics of the administration’s policy, which some had derisively dubbed a “Grandma Ban,” hailed Watson’s decision.

“The 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,” 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.

What happens next

In advance of Watson’s 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 “significant confusion as the government continues to implement the Executive Order consistent with court orders.”

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. </s> In a victory for challengers of the Trump administration’s travel ban, a federal court judge late Thursday agreed once again to partially halt the ban of certain foreign nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries on a nationwide basis — a direct rebuke to the government’s attempt to limit the close family members allowed in the US.

Most specifically, Thursday’s decision means that “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States” will now count as sufficiently close family relationships to gain entry into the country.

The Supreme Court ruled late last month that the administration could employ the travel ban against foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide” relationship to a person or entity in the US, but the state of Hawaii said the administration had wrongfully interpreted that to exclude close family, such as grandparents.

The countries affected are Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

US District Court Judge Derrick Watson — who originally blocked the travel ban back in March — said the Trump administration’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision defied common sense.

“What is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision is that this Court’s analysis is to be guided by consideration of whether foreign nationals have a requisite ‘connection’ or ‘tie’ to this country,” Watson wrote. “Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.”

Watson further agreed with Hawaii that a refugee resettlement agency’s “formal assurance” to a refugee seeking admission to the US counts as a sufficiently bona fide relationship as well.

“An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” Watson explained. “Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”

The Trump administration must now appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in order to get Watson’s order lifted, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. </s> U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ruled late Thursday in favor of the state of Hawaii’s motion to overrule the Trump administration’s definition of “bona fide relationship.” This allows grandparents and other distant relatives of American residents to arrive in the country as refugees from any country and travelers from six Middle Eastern countries temporarily banned from arriving in the United States under Executive Order 13780.

Watson, whose March 29 preliminary injuction in Hawaii v. Trump halting Section 2 (c) (the temporary travel ban) and Section 6 (the temporary refugee ban) of Executive Order 13780, signed by President Trump on March 6, was partially overturned by the Supreme Court in its unanimous June 26 decision is in effect daring the Supreme Court to overrule him again.

“What is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision is that this Court’s analysis is to be guided by consideration of whether foreign nationals have a requisite ‘connection’ or ‘tie’ to this country,” Watson ruled, siding with the brief filed by the state of Hawaii, in which they argued, “The Supreme Court held that the injunction “clearly” protects aliens “similarly situated” to a U.S. person’s mother-in-law . . . , a relative that is—like a grandparent, a niece, and so on—two “degree[s] of kinship” removed from a U.S. person .”

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be,” Watson added.

What the Supreme Court actually said in its June 26 decision in reference to “mother-in-law” is this:

“The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the Supreme Court wrote in its unanimous June 26 decision:

The Dr. Elshikh referenced in the Supreme Court is the second plaintiff in the case, Dr Ismail Elshikh, an Egyptian born legal resident of the United States who heads up the largest mosque in Hawaii. He resides in the United States with his wife, whose mother–Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law– is therefore “one degree of kinship” removed from a resident of the United States.

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the Court added:

Watson also sided with the state of Hawaii, which has resettled only three refugees so far in FY 2017 and none in FY 2016, and granted its motion to define a “bona fide relationship” between an individual or an entity as including a promise made by a federally funded refugee resettlement agency to relocate the foreign national in the United States as a refugee.

“An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones: it is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” Watson wrote.

The Court, in its June 26 decision, wrote that “The Hawaii injunction extends beyond §2(c) to bar enforcement of the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions and the §6(b) refugee cap.”

An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded. As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security. The Government’s application to stay the injunction with respect to §§6(a) and (b) is accordingly granted in part. Section 6(a) may not be enforced against an individual seeking admission as a refugee who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Nor may §6(b); that is, such a person may not be excluded pursuant to §6(b), even if the 50,000-person cap has been reached or exceeded. As applied to all other individuals, the provisions may take effect

Watson’s decision may will further polarize the country between the blue states and the red states.

On Monday, for instance 14 blue states, the District of Columbia, and the state of Iowa, which voted for Trump, filed a filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Hawaii’s motion.

It may also once more generate calls for his impeachment.

“Watson’s reasoning is so convoluted and were it actually true that a refugee resettlement agency had a ‘contract’ inferring that there was some kind of commitment or expectations of how many refugees they would be paid to resettle, then a resettlement agency would have sued long ago if they didn’t get the number of refugees they proposed taking,” an attorney familiar with the refugee resettlement program tells Breitbart News.

“We know this is really about two things – obstructing Trump and keeping the money flowing,” the attorney adds.

In his partially concurring, partially dissenting opinion released as part of the June 26 Supreme Court Decision, Justice Clarence Thomas predicted the bureaucratic mess and left wing lawfare that would be the result.

Though Thomas did not explicitly state it, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision failed to acknowledge that there is no statutory basis for the “bona fide relationship” exception in the refugee admissions program it added.

“But the Court takes the additional step of keeping the injunctions in place with regard to an unidentified, unnamed group of foreign nationals abroad,” Thomas wrote.

“Moreover, I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Thomas concluded in his dissent:

Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship,” who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed “simply to avoid §2(c)” of Executive Order No. 13780. And litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now—unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected.

As it relates to the refugee portion of his decision, Judge Watson’s decision influences only the last eleven weeks of FY 2017, which was the limit of Section 6 in Executive Order 13780.

Congress has only funded the resettlement of about 62,500 refugees in FY 2017.

On Thursday, the first day in which the Trump administration’s definition of “bona fide relationship went into effect, 81 refugees were allowed into the country.

By law, the President establishes the ceiling for refugees, and in consultation with Congress establishes the budget to fund the resettlement of those refugees.

In September 2016, before the beginning of FY 2017, President Obama set a refugee ceiling for FY 2017 at 110,000, but Congress never provided that level of funding for the program.

President Trump’s ceiling of 50,000 was specified in the Executive Order 13780.

As of 11 p.m. eastern on July 13, 50,186 refugees have been resettled in the United States during FY 2017, 186 above Trump’s limit, according to the State Department’s interactive website.

It marks the first time in the history of the program that a ceiling established by a U.S. President has been exceeded.

FY 2017 is unusual, however, since the original ceiling of 110,000 was established by a lame duck president who served only three and a half months of the fiscal year for which he set the ceiling, Congress only funded about 62,500 refugees ultimately for the fiscal year, and President Trump established the ceiling in an executive order issued five months into the fiscal year.

The real test of Trump administration’s policy regarding refugees will come in September, when he issues a ceiling recommendation for FY 2018.

Meanwhile, Judge Watson’s decision, if it remains in effect, will simply be about how much money federal taxpayers will pay resettlement agencies for the remaining eleven weeks of FY 2017.

At the 81 refugees per day rate of July 13 which, presumably reflects the Trump administration’s narrow definition of “bona fide relationship,” another 4,400 refugees will be resettled in FY 2017, bringing the total in FY 2017 to 54,500.

In contrast, if the Trump administration follows the broader definition forced upon it by Judge Watson’s decision, another 12,000 to 12,500 refugees will be resettled in FY 2017, bringing the total in FY 2017 to slightly over 62,000.

The next step as it relates to the FY 2017 refugee admission numbers and the travel ban is up to the Trump administration.

They did not comment after Judge Watson’s decision Thursday night, but their only immediate option is to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit. They cannot appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hear the federal government’s appeal of Hawaii v. Trump after its annual session begins in October. </s> The U.S. Supreme Court is on something of a summer vacation. But the ongoing legal battle over President Trump’s travel ban is taking no time off. A federal district court in Hawaii ruled Thursday night that a category of travelers previously blocked by the directive can now enter the United States: the grandparents and other close family members of U.S. residents coming from countries listed under the ban. In doing so, the court rejected the administration’s narrow view of a Supreme Court decision last month and reopened entry for thousands more potential visa applicants. Judge Derrick Watson wrote that the government’s exclusion of grandparents in particular was “the antithesis of common sense.” The high court had said anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to someone living in the United States could enter despite the ban, which the Trump administration took to mean parents, spouses, children, and other “close familial relationships.” At the same time, the administration explicitly said grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, and siblings-in-law would be excluded. The state of Hawaii filed motions challenging that determination in court, arguing the justices’ order should be interpreted broadly. In his ruling on Thursday, Watson agreed. “Had the Supreme Court intended to protect only immediate family members and parents-in-law, surely it could have said so,” he wrote. “It did not.”

Watson also rejected the government’s criteria for admitting refugees into the United States. The Court said in June that only a refugee with a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. refugee agency would qualify for entry under the ban. In the State Department’s interpretation, this meant a documented relationship between a private resettlement agency and a specific refugee. But Watson sided with Hawaii’s challenge and ruled that assurances made between an agency on a refugee’s behalf and the State Department itself would qualify. “An assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency, in fact, meets each of the Supreme Court’s touchstones,” Watson wrote. “It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades. “Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that,” he added. The ban, which temporarily bars entry for most visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries and for many refugees worldwide, has spent most of the last six months suppressed by injunctions from multiple federal appeals courts. The Trump administration has defended its order as a vital step for national security, while critics have charged that it amounts to the unconstitutional ban on Muslims that Trump once pledged to impose during the campaign.

After two federal appeals courts ruled against the second iteration of the ban in May and June, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Court said on the last day of its term last month that it would hear two lawsuits challenging it, Hawaii v. Trump and International Refugee Assistance Program v. Trump, later this year when the justices return from summer recess. Until then, they unanimously lifted part of the lower court injunctions to allow the ban to go into partial effect. “In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the Court said in an unsigned order on behalf of the justices, referring to the provision ordering the visa-application freeze. “All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of [the second version of the executive order].” Only the Supreme Court can modify its own order, but lower courts have some discretion in interpreting its scope and application. That gave Watson the authority to determine how far the Court’s exemptions from the ban would extend. “What is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision is that this Court’s analysis is to be guided by consideration of whether foreign nationals have a requisite ‘connection’ or ‘tie’ to this country,” Watson wrote. “Put another way, context matters.” The organizations challenging the travel ban in court praised his ruling. “While a partial ban remains in effect as a result of last month’s Supreme Court ruling, this decision limits its application to ensure that fewer refugees, families, and loved ones are discriminated against based solely on their religion or country of origin,” Karen Tumlin, the National Immigration Law Center’s legal director, said in a statement. The Justice Department has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has handed the Trump administration multiple defeats on its ban over the past six months. </s> WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Hawaii has expanded the list of family relationships with U.S. citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The current rules aren’t so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen.

People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country.

Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday’s ruling, will be considered for new visas.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson said in his ruling. “Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined “bona fide” relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court’s order and block any violation of it.

Watson’s Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a “bona fide” relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case said the court made clear “that the U.S. government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit.”

“Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough,” Chin said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a U.S. university or lecturers invited to address a U.S. audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

President Trump proposed a blanket ban during his campaign, but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled, until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It’s unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel.

In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel.

Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas. </s> HONOLULU (AP) — In another setback for President Donald Trump, a federal judge in Hawaii has further weakened his already diluted travel ban by vastly expanding the list of family relationships with U.S. citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The ruling is the latest piece of pushback in the fierce fight set off by the ban Trump first attempted in January. It will culminate with arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in October.

The current rules aren’t so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen. People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country. Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday’s ruling, will be considered for new visas.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson said in his ruling. “Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a “bona fide” relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined “bona fide” relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court’s order and block any violation of it.

Watson’s Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a “bona fide” relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case said the court made clear “that the U.S. government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit.”

“Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough,” Chin said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a U.S. university or lecturers invited to address a U.S. audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

Trump proposed a blanket ban on Muslims during his campaign, but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled, until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It’s unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel. In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel. Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas.

Associated Press writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this story from Los Angeles. </s> Judge Derrick K. Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu — who was one of two judges who issued a ruling last March blocking sections of President Trump’s March 6 executive order that banned travel to the United States by foreign nationals from six countries identified as being state sponsors of terrorism — is at it again. On July 13, Watson imposed his own interpretation of the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling that allowed the travel ban to go into effect, exempting only one category of foreigners from the travel ban, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

However, the court left “bona fide relationship” open to interpretation. The Trump administration interpreted that exemption as applying only to immediate family members such as a parent, spouse, fiancé, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling. However, in his latest ruling, Watson decided to expand the exemption considerably, to include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of people already in this country.

In his ruling, Watson touted the superiority of his own definition above that of the Trump administration, asserting: “The Government’s definition represents the antithesis of common sense. Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Government's definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.” (Emphasis in original.)

Hawaii’s Attorney General Douglas Chin issued a statement about Watson’s ruling: “The federal court today makes clear that the U.S. Government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit. Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough. Courts have found that this Executive Order has no basis in stopping terrorism and is just a pretext for illegal and unconstitutional discrimination. We will continue preparing for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in October.”

This was Watson’s second ruling aimed at the Trump travel ban. Last March, just hours before an amended version of the ban was scheduled to take effect, he granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the Trump administration executive branch from enforcing or implementing two key sections of the March 6 executive order across the nation.

The New York Times reported Watson’s written statement at the time asserting that a “reasonable, objective observer” would view even the new order as “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Trump’s March 6 order that Watson stopped had dropped some language that had been included in the original January 27 travel ban order — language that made exceptions for persecuted religious minorities, including Christians. This well-intentioned item was misconstrued by critics (including a Seattle judge who ruled against it on February 3) as being “anti-Muslim,” so it was removed from the second order.

Despite this change, both Watson and U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland (who were both appointed by former president Obama) made numerous reference to Trump’s alleged anti-Muslim bias in their respective decisions to block the order.

The administration appealed these judges’ decisions to the Supreme Court, which as mentioned previously, granted most of the administration’s emergency request to put the travel ban into place.

During a press gaggle aboard Air Force One on July 14 conducted by Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert, a reporter asked if the administration had any response to Watson’s ruling and if it raised any concerns as far as security enforcement.

Bossert replied that he did not know of any formal administration response, and although he had not read the entire ruling, he did have concerns based on early reports. He said:

So I would say that, as it was reported to me, it seemed to be fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported. In terms of a connection with any group, any refugee organization, it might be read, if the early reports that I looked at were accurate, as something so expansive as to cover every refugee. And that certainly couldn’t be the interpretation the Supreme Court intended.

When the report asked Bossert if there had been steps taken to design and implement extreme vetting procedures for admitting aliens, he answered:

There's a number of efforts ongoing to implement the president's executive order, especially now that it is been freed from legal constraint by the Supreme Court. The question you asked is about vetting. Of course, we’re improving … our policies and our capabilities to better vet people seeking entry into the United States.

Image of court: Screenshot of District Court of Hawaii website

Supreme Court Allows Most of Trump Travel Ban to Proceed, Will Hear Case in Fall

Trump's DOJ Submitted “Watered Down” Version of His Travel Ban to Supreme Court

Federal Judges Again Block Trump Travel Ban From Nations With Terrorist Ties

Judge Grants Stay to Bar Trump DHS From Deporting Aliens From Seven Nations of Concern

Trump Executive Order to Ban Nationals of “Countries of Particular Concern” </s> In another setback for President Donald Trump, a federal judge in Hawaii has further weakened his already diluted travel ban by vastly expanding the list of family relationships with U.S. citizens that visa applicants can use to get into the U.S.

The ruling is the latest piece of pushback in the fierce fight set off by the ban Trump first attempted in January. It will culminate with arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in October.

The current rules aren't so much an outright ban as a tightening of already-tough visa policies affecting citizens from six Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen. People from those countries who already have visas will be allowed into the country. Only narrow categories of people, including those with relatives named in Thursday's ruling, will be considered for new visas.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday ordered the government not to enforce the ban on grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.

"Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents," Watson said in his ruling. "Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members."

Watson also ruled that the government may not exclude refugees who have formal assurance and promise of placement services from a resettlement agency in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last month allowed a scaled-back version of the ban to go into effect before it hears the case in October, exempted visa applicants from the ban if they can prove a "bona fide" relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity.

The Trump administration defined "bona fide" relationship as those who had a parent, spouse, fiance, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the U.S.

The case came back to Watson when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court's order and block any violation of it.

Watson's Thursday ruling broadened the definition of what counts as a "bona fide" relationship to include grandparents and the rest of the wider list of relatives.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas S. Chin, who represents the state as the plaintiff in the case said the court made clear "that the U.S. government may not ignore the scope of the partial travel ban as it sees fit."

"Family members have been separated and real people have suffered enough," Chin said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled that workers who accepted jobs from American companies, students who enrolled at a U.S. university or lecturers invited to address a U.S. audience would also be exempt.

A relationship created for purposes of avoiding the travel ban would not be acceptable, the justices said.

Trump proposed a blanket ban on Muslims during his campaign, but limited it to a handful of countries when he issued his initial travel ban in January, promoting it as a necessary tool for national security and fighting terrorism.

It set off massive protests at airports around the country and immediately sparked a sprawling, ongoing legal fight.

Courts blocked that first ban as well as a second the Trump administration had retooled, until the Supreme Court partially reinstated it at the end of June.

It's unclear how significantly the new rules have affected or will affect travel. In most of the countries singled out, few people have the means for leisure travel. Those that do already face intensive screenings before being issued visas.
The Trump Administration asks the U.S. Supreme Court to stop implementation of yesterday's ruling by Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson that expanded the State Department's definition of "close family" used to implement the Supreme Court's June order that permits admission to the U.S. of those with a bona fide relationship.