HONOLULU (CN) — The state of Hawaii is again urging a federal judge to clarify his block of President Trump’s travel ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in March stalled enforcement of the travel ban – which restricted immigration from six Muslim-majority nations – but he declined to clarify his ruling last week. He said that the matter turned on the Supreme Court’s use of the term “close family” in a preliminary ruling two weeks ago to determine who should be eligible to enter the country now that the high court has issued a temporary stay on enforcing certain portions of the travel ban block.

Upon appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Judge Watson may indeed enforce or modify his own injunction.

Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg disagreed, arguing in court documents filed in the District of Hawaii Tuesday that the court lacks enforcement or modification authority. Rosenberg also elaborated on the Trump administration’s definition of “close family,” leaning on a formulation in the Immigration and Nationality Act that focuses on the children, spouses and parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin responded in a brief filed Wednesday that Hawaii is only following the “precise roadmap” laid out by the Ninth Circuit, while “the government tries every possible avenue” to defy the Supreme Court’s directive that anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to this country cannot be denied entry.

Chin continued, “The Government has spent two weeks carrying out its unconstitutional order against the vulnerable and the weak.” Chin’s brief cites a Ukrainian granddaughter attempting to reunite with her 93-year-old grandmother, a refugee stranded in Malawi while his uncle waits for him here, and “countless individuals” promised resettlement by a dedicated refugee organization.

Rosenberg countered that an assurance from a refugee resettlement agency does not constitute a bona fide relationship and that resettlement is contingent upon a contract between the agency and the government. According to Rosenberg, Hawaii’s “blanket approach” to admitting refugees would eviscerate the Supreme Court’s stay.

Rosenberg may be conflating the portion of Watson’s injunction that protects refugees, which the Supreme Court left intact, with the injunction against the 120-day ban on immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, which the Supreme Court overturned.

Rosenberg continued, “Plaintiffs would have the court modify its injunction by adding requirements that, at best, appear nowhere in the Supreme Court’s opinion.”

Chin accused the government of manufacturing ad hoc rules, including its “newly minted rationalization” relying on immigration laws to establish a strict definition of “family.”

Such guidelines, Chin said, would preclude plaintiff Ismael Elshikh’s mother-in-law from coming into the country, for example, even though the Supreme Court ruling granted her protection. “It defies credulity that this is what the Supreme Court had in mind when it mentioned Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law,” Chin wrote. </s> California on Monday joined Washington state’s growing effort to block President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim nations as Washington’s attorney general sought a hearing before a federal judge to try to prevent the order from taking effect this week.

In a new complaint filed in U.S. District Court Monday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson asked for a hearing with the judge based in Seattle on Tuesday, two days before the revised travel ban is scheduled to begin.

He said the new travel ban is unconstitutional and harms state residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies like Microsoft and Amazon that rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon joined Washington in the legal action.

“No one is above the law, not even the President — and I will hold him accountable to the Constitution,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Cutting some illegal aspects of President Trump’s original travel ban does not cure his affront to our Constitution.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the order, despite being changed, represents an attack on people based on their religion or national origin.

Ferguson filed the new court documents after a federal judge last week said he wouldn’t immediately rule on whether his restraining order against the old ban applies to the new Trump executive order. U.S. District Judge James Robart on Friday asked for new motions or a complaint.

Washington was the first state to sue over the original ban, which resulted in Robart halting its implementation around the country.

Trump’s revised ban blocks new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim countries, including Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen.

It also temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. Unlike the original order, the new one says current visa holders won’t be affected, and it removes language that would give priority to religious minorities.

Ferguson acknowledged the changes to the order, but said the revised ban still “bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries,” including relatives of U.S. citizens and students who have been admitted to state universities and people who might seek work at schools and businesses.

“This Court’s original injunction protected these individuals and institutions,” Washington’s new court filing said. Washington state said the federal government can’t enforce the new travel ban unless it asks Robart to modify his original temporary restraining order.

“Until they do so, they cannot escape the injunction and continue their illegal conduct,” the filing said.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said last week that the administration believed the revised travel ban will stand up to legal scrutiny. </s> A federal judge in Hawaii is questioning attorneys for the Trump administration about their argument that suspending the nation's refugee program has no effect on the state.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted Wednesday in a hearing that the government says 20 refugees were resettled in Hawaii since 2010. He asked: "Is this a mathematical exercise that 20 isn't enough? ... What do I make of that?"

Watson is hearing arguments on whether to extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until Hawaii's lawsuit is resolved.

Government attorneys are urging a federal judge in Hawaii to be guided by narrower rulings blocking just one subsection of Trump's travel ban.

Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler, participating in a Honolulu hearing by telephone Wednesday, says Hawaii has only made generalized concerns about effects to students and tourism. He says suspending the refugee program has no impact on Hawaii.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted earlier that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

That judge said it wasn't clear that the suspension of the refugee program was similarly motivated by religious bias.

Hawaii's attorney general is quoting President Donald Trump's comments that the revised travel ban is a "watered down" version of the first one.

In arguments Wednesday, Attorney General Douglas Chin is urging a federal judge not to narrow his order blocking the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and suspension of the nation's refugee program.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson notes that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the six-nation ban.

A hearing has started in federal court in Hawaii on whether a judge should extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until the state's lawsuit is resolved.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson is listening to arguments Wednesday. Even if he doesn't issue a longer-lasting hold on the ban, his temporary block would stay in place until he rules otherwise.

The state says the policy discriminates against Muslims, while the government says it falls within the president's power to protect national security.

This month, Watson prevented the federal government from suspending new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and freezing the nation's refugee program.

A hearing in Honolulu is set for Wednesday. But even if U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson doesn't put the ban on hold until the state's lawsuit is resolved, his temporary block would remain until he rules otherwise. </s> SEATTLE -- More than a half-dozen states trying to block President Trump’s revised travel ban moved forward Monday with a pair of lawsuits while the government asked that the order be allowed to take effect this week.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, joined in his lawsuit by heavily Democratic California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon, asked for a hearing with a federal judge in Seattle before the administration plans to implement the ban Thursday on new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim nations.

A hearing in a separate lawsuit by Hawaii already has been scheduled for Wednesday.

Ferguson said the revised ban is still unconstitutional and harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon who rely on foreign workers.

“No one is above the law, not even the president -- and I will hold him accountable to the Constitution,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Cutting some illegal aspects of President Trump’s original travel ban does not cure his affront to our Constitution.”

Ferguson filed new court documents after the judge who put Mr. Trump’s original order on hold said last week he would not immediately rule on whether his decision applies to the new version. U.S. District Judge James Robart told the federal government to quickly respond to Ferguson’s claims but said he would not hold a hearing before Wednesday.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the most populous U.S. state was joining Washington state’s challenge, saying the order, despite its changes, is an attack on people based on their religion or national origin.

In Hawaii, which is alone in its lawsuit, the U.S. government asked a federal court Monday to deny the state’s request to temporarily block the ban from going into effect.

A judge will hear arguments Wednesday, with the heavily Democratic state claiming the new order will harm its Muslim population, tourism and foreign students. Ismail Elshikh, a plaintiff in Hawaii’s challenge, said the ban will prevent his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting.

The government says Hawaii’s allegations that the ban will negatively affect tourism and universities are pure speculation. It also says neither Elshikh nor his mother-in-law have been harmed because she has not been denied a waiver for a visa to visit the United States.

Mr. Trump’s revised ban applies to Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. Unlike the original order, it says people with visas won’t be affected and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities.

Ferguson acknowledged the changes to the order but said it still “bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries,” including relatives of U.S. citizens and students who have been admitted to state universities and people who might seek work at schools and businesses.

“This court’s original injunction protected these individuals and institutions,” Washington state’s new court filing said.

It said the federal government can’t enforce the new travel ban unless it asks Judge Robart to modify his original restraining order.

“Until they do so, they cannot escape the injunction and continue their illegal conduct,” the filing said.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said last week that the administration believes the revised travel ban will stand up to legal scrutiny. </s> WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department on Monday laid out its first significant legal defense of President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, arguing in a court filing that the harm opponents say it causes is "speculative" and that the president was well within his authority to issue the directive.

Responding to a lawsuit by Hawaii, Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump's new executive order solves any possible legal problems that came with the first one, because it is narrower in scope and outlines a robust list of people who might be exempted.

"Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to the sweeping relief they seek," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

Opponents of Trump's executive order have asked federal judges in several states to block the administration from enforcing the directive, and two judges have scheduled hearings for Wednesday to hear arguments on the matter. The order -- which suspends the U.S.' refugee program and bars the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- is set to take effect Thursday unless a court intervenes.

[U.S. immigration: Data visualization of selectedimmigration statistics, U.S. border map]

Hawaii was the first state to sue over the directive, arguing that the new executive order, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent, and damages the state's robust tourism industry.

In support of Hawaii's lawsuit, several states, as well as Washington, D.C., filed documents in federal court Monday saying they want to collectively file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief.

The states are Illinois, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

A federal judge in Honolulu is to hear the motion Wednesday.

[PRESIDENT TRUMP: Timeline, appointments, executive orders + guide to actions in first 100 days]

Hawaii's lawyers pointed to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law's application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law, who is Syrian, would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the economic harm alleged by the state was "mere speculation" and that Elshikh's mother-in-law had no reason to sue because she had not been denied a waiver to enter the country. The new executive order, unlike the old, spelled out a list of people who might be granted exemptions, including those seeking to visit or live with family in the United States.

"The Order applies only to individuals outside the country who do not have a current visa, and even as to them, it sets forth robust waiver provisions," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "Among other things, therefore, plaintiffs cannot show that any individual whom they seek to protect is in imminent risk of being denied entry due to the Order."

The state will have to convince a judge that Trump's ban is likely to ultimately be found unconstitutional and that it will impose immediate, irreparable harm unless it is stopped. A hearing in the case is Wednesday afternoon.

Federal judges in Washington state and Maryland were also considering separate challenges to the new ban, and either could pre-empt the need for action in Hawaii. A hearing in the Maryland case is Wednesday morning, and Washington on Monday formally asked a judge to enforce his freeze of the previous ban on the new one and to schedule a hearing for today.

"While the new section differs from the original by excluding Iraqis, lawful permanent residents, and visa-holders, it bars entry for virtually all other individuals from the listed countries, including: relatives of U.S. citizens, students who have been admitted to state universities, prospective employees of state universities and private businesses, and many others," lawyers for Washington wrote. "This Court's original injunction protected these individuals and institutions, and the Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants' request to narrow the injunction to exclude them."

The administration has argued that the ban is necessary for national security reasons, though many diplomatic and national security professionals have said they disagree with that assessment and that the new ban would probably not have kept out anyone responsible for a fatal terrorist attack since 2001.

In their filing, Justice Department lawyers pointed to 300 people who entered the United States as refugees and are under investigation in terrorism-related cases, and asserted that hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted of such offenses.

"More fundamentally, plaintiffs miss the point," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The Order's objective is to prevent future terrorist attacks before they occur. And that is precisely why the Order focuses on six countries that Congress and the prior Administration recently determined pose the greatest risk of terrorist infiltration in the future."

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently blocked the administration from enforcing the order with respect to one family. In that case, a man who had fled Syria and been granted asylum in the United States sued so the ban would not be applied to his wife and 3-year-old daughter, who are still in Aleppo and have asylum applications being processed.

The judge ruled that the family had "some likelihood of success on the merits" and that the man was "at great risk of suffering irreparable harm" if the order were not blocked, so far as it applied to his family.

Information for this article was contributed by staff members of The Associated Press. </s> HONOLULU (AP) - The Latest on a hearing in federal court in Hawaii on President Donald Trump's travel ban (all times local):

A federal judge in Hawaii is questioning attorneys for the Trump administration about their argument that suspending the nation's refugee program has no effect on the state.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted Wednesday in a hearing that the government says 20 refugees were resettled in Hawaii since 2010. He asked: "Is this a mathematical exercise that 20 isn't enough? ... What do I make of that?"

Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler replied that 20 is a small number. Watson countered, "In whose judgment?"

Watson is hearing arguments on whether to extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until Hawaii's lawsuit is resolved.

Government attorneys are urging a federal judge in Hawaii to be guided by narrower rulings blocking just one subsection of Trump's travel ban.

Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler, participating in a Honolulu hearing by telephone Wednesday, says Hawaii has only made generalized concerns about effects to students and tourism. He says suspending the refugee program has no impact on Hawaii.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson noted earlier that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

That judge said it wasn't clear that the suspension of the refugee program was similarly motivated by religious bias.

Hawaii's attorney general is quoting President Donald Trump's comments that the revised travel ban is a "watered down" version of the first one.

In arguments Wednesday, Attorney General Douglas Chin is urging a federal judge not to narrow his order blocking the ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and suspension of the nation's refugee program.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson notes that the government only argued for a narrower interpretation after a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland was limited to the six-nation ban.

Watson says "it came immediately on the heels of Judge Chuang's decision."

A hearing has started in federal court in Hawaii on whether a judge should extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban until the state's lawsuit is resolved.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson is listening to arguments Wednesday. Even if he doesn't issue a longer-lasting hold on the ban, his temporary block would stay in place until he rules otherwise.

Legal experts say it's unlikely Watson would side with the Trump administration.

The state says the policy discriminates against Muslims, while the government says it falls within the president's power to protect national security.

This month, Watson prevented the federal government from suspending new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and freezing the nation's refugee program.

A federal judge in Hawaii is hearing arguments on whether to extend his temporary order blocking President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

A hearing in Honolulu is set for Wednesday. But even if U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson doesn't put the ban on hold until the state's lawsuit is resolved, his temporary block would remain until he rules otherwise.

Legal experts say it's unlikely Watson would side with the Trump administration.

Government attorneys say that if the judge issues a longer-lasting hold, he should narrow his ruling to cover only the part of the ban that suspends new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries.

They say the lawsuit doesn't show how Hawaii would be harmed by other sections of the ban, including suspending the nation's refugee program.

Watson also prevented that section from taking effect two weeks ago. </s> A Hawaii-based federal judge on Wednesday extended an order that blocks implementation of President Trump’s revised executive order on travel and refugees.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson declined to narrow the scope of his prior ruling to block only the travel portion of the order, writing in his 24-page order that “it makes little sense to do so.” His order converts a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, which will block the Trump administration from enforcing the travel ban as the lawsuit while the court considers the merits of the case.

The Justice Department had hoped to convince the judge not to extend his order, which since March 15 has prevented the administration from enforcing portion’s of the revised order that temporarily ban travel of foreign nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to the United States, temporarily block all refugee resettlement in the U.S. and lower the cap on the number of refugees to be allowed into the United States this year from 110,000 people to 50,000 people.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said the policy discriminates against Muslims and hurts the state’s economy. The implied message in the revised ban is like a “neon sign flashing ‘Muslim Ban, Muslim Ban”’ that the government didn’t bother to turn off, he said.

The Justice Department had also put forth an alternate option, urging the judge to limit the scope of his order so that the refugee restrictions of the order could take effect. The DOJ argued that Hawaii had not provided adequate evidence that they are harmed by that part of the executive order.

In briefs submitted last week, the Justice Department argued that most of the State of Hawaii’s arguments against the order were focused on the harms the travel restrictions would cause the state’s economy or tourism industry, with little attention paid to the effects of the refugee restrictions. They cited statistics from the State Department’s Refugee Admissions Office that showed since 2010 that just 20 out of more than 530,000 refugees settled in the United States since 2010 were brought to Hawaii for resettlement.

But Judge Watson’s wrote that his preliminary injunction will apply to both section 2 and section 6 of the Trump administration’s order which related to the temporary travel and refugee bans “because the entirety of the Executive Order runs afoul of the Establishment Clause.”

“Put another way, the historical context and evidence relied on by the Court, highlighted by the comments of the Executive and his surrogates, does not parse between Section 2 and Section 6, nor does it do so between subsections within Section 2,” Judge Watson wrote. “Accordingly, there is no basis to narrow the Court’s ruling in the manner requested by the Federal Defendants.”
• This article is based in part on wire service reports. </s> A federal judge in Hawaii has rejected a motion filed by that state seeking to limit the scope of President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban, parts of which were cleared to be implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said in a ruling Thursday in Honolulu that the Supreme Court is the proper venue to deal with the issue.

Hawaii argued that the government's plan for enforcing the executive order wrongly excluded grandparents and other relatives from the list of close family members who would still be able to get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force. Government lawyers argued against broadening exceptions, as sought by Hawaii and others.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26 that the administration could begin enforcing part the executive order until it makes a final ruling. The high court also agreed to take up the government's appeal of lower-court rulings which had blocked implementation of Trump's executive order.

"Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here," Watson wrote in Thursday's ruling.

Hawaii was one of the federal courts that blocked implementation of the travel order, which would limit for 90 days entry to the United States of those from six predominantly Muslim nations.

Critics claim that Trump's executive order is a "Muslim ban." Trump has claimed that the order is to protect Americans from terrorism.

Trump issued a second, revised order after the first one was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle and after the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals refused to reinstate it.

The revised order calls for a 90-day ban on issuing visas to citizens of Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen who want to come to the U.S. But unlike the first executive order, this one does not apply to anyone who has already obtained a valid visa.

Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law would be subject to the ban.

The executive order also imposes a 120-day ban on refugees who have no "bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the United States. </s> The Department of Justice has filed an appeal against a federal judge in Washington state’s ruling that temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

The ruling, handed down Friday, came as a result of a lawsuit by the states of Washington and Minnesota to halt the order, which temporarily barred travelers and refugees from seven Muslim countries from entering the U.S.

According to the Associated Press, the request for an emergency stay, which would reinstate the order, was filed Saturday night in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This move was largely expected after White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement Friday night calling the ruling an “outrageous order” and saying the administration would file an appeal “at the earliest possible time.”

This is a developing story and will be updated with more details.
The state of Washington, joined by the states of California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon, asks a federal judge to stop, on constitutional grounds, the revised federal immigration/refugee rules from taking effect on Thursday, March 16. The state of Hawaii has filed a separate, similar request.