Grandparents and other extended relatives are exempt from President Trumpâs travel ban, a federal judge in Hawaii declared late Thursday, again stopping the administration from implementing the presidentâs controversial executive order in the way that it wants.
U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson wrote that the governmentâs ânarrowly defined listâ of who might be exempt was not supported by either the Supreme Court decision partially unfreezing the ban or by the law.
âCommon sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,â Watson wrote. âIndeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The Governmentâs definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.â
Watson wrote that refugees with an assurance from a resettlement agency could also be exempt from the ban.
At issue is how far the administration can go in keeping relatives of U.S. residents out under the presidentâs travel ban, which temporarily bars entry for all refugees and the issuance of new visas to residents of six Muslim-majority countries.
The Supreme Court ruled late last month that the government could begin enforcing the measure, but not against those with âa credible claim of a bona fide relationshipâ with a person or entity in the United States.
The court offered only limited guidance on what type of relationship would qualify. âClose familialâ relationships would count, the court said, as would ties such as a job offer or school acceptance letter that were âformal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course.â
The administration said it would let into the United States from the six affected countries parents, parents-in-law, siblings, spouses, children, sons and daughters, fiances and sons-in-law and daughters-in-law of those already here.
Still banned, however, were grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. And the administration also said it would keep out refugees who had a formal assurance from a resettlement agency.
The state of Hawaii, which has been suing over the travel ban, soon asked Watson to intervene.
The district judge had initially ruled against Hawaii in the case, telling it to go straight to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit also rebuffed the stateâs request, though it offered a way forward: Watson, the appeals court said, would have jurisdiction over a reframed request. Hawaii then filed such a request, setting up Watsonâs ruling Thursday.
The government had argued that it drew its definition of who counted as a close family member from immigration law. The ruling is a blow to the administration, though it almost certainly wonât be the last word on the case. Both those suing over the ban and the government lawyers defending it indicated earlier they thought the question of who could properly be kept out after the Supreme Court unfroze the ban was a matter destined for appellate courts.
And while the Supreme Court partially unfroze Trumpâs travel ban, it did so only temporarily, indicating it would truly take up the case in the fall. By that time, the bans might have expired. The barring of new visas to those from six countries is supposed to last 90 days, and the barring of refugees is supposed to last 120 days.