A battle has begun in the federal courts over the proper scope of President Trump’s travel ban that has been permitted by the Supreme Court.
Shortly before fireworks began on the Fourth of July, the Trump administration went to federal district court to argue against Hawaii’s request to clarify the scope of the Supreme Court’s lifting of the blockade of the ban.
Trump’s ban, implemented by a revised executive order, sought to prevent nationals from six Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — from entering the U.S. for 90 days and refugees from all countries for 120 days.
In agreeing to hear the travel ban litigation in its October term, the Supreme Court pulled back portions of the blockades of Trump’s ban implemented by the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals. Specifically, the high court lifted the blockades of the ban to allow foreign nationals who have a “bona fide relationship” with people in the U.S.
Hawaii then went to federal court and argued that “the government announced that it intended to violate the Supreme Court’s instruction” based on the Trump administration’s decision to block entry of grandparents and grandchildren, fiances, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.
“The government does not have discretion to ignore the court’s injunction as it sees fit,” said Hawaii’s lawyers. “The state of Hawaii is entitled to the enforcement of the injunction that it has successfully defended, in large part, up to the Supreme Court — one that protects the state’s residents and their loved ones from an illegal and unconstitutional executive order.”
The Trump administration responded late Monday, countering that Hawaii’s challenge had no merit. The Trump team argued that its decision about how to implement the ban was rooted in the Immigration and Nationality Act and “hews closely to the categorical determinations articulated by Congress.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas predicted a “flood of litigation” would result from the high court’s decision to hear the travel ban litigation and allow specific portions of the ban to proceed. The bickering between attorneys for Hawaii and the Trump administration represents some of the first skirmishes.
