The Supreme Court lifted parts of the injunction against the Trump administration’s travel ban on Monday, pending oral argument and a full decision.
The Court, however, explicitly ruled that the injunction remains in place — the administration cannot enforce its ban — against “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
As Ilya Somin points out, the administration is blatantly defying the Court’s ruling.
Copyright: prestonia / 123RF Stock Photo
They’ve decided to define ‘bona fide relatoinship’ as excluding “grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés, and any other ‘extended’ family members” of residents of the United States.”
The Court lifted the injunction against “foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all” and the Trump administration has decided to act as though grandparents and in-laws have no connection at all (although they apparently reversed course on their claim that fiances have no connection).
The Supreme Court explicitly gave the example of a mother-in-law as having a “close family relationship” so the administration isn’t trying to ban mothers-in-law.
Moreover, while refugees cannot be banned if they have a formal relationship with a U.S. organization (e.g. “offer of employment, acceptance to an academic program at a university, an invitation to give a lecture”) yet the administration is banning entry to refugees “who have received ‘formal assurances’ from US refugee resettlement organizations who have agreed to sponsor them.”
Copyright: andreyuu / 123RF Stock Photo
The State of Hawaii, one of the original plaintiffs against the ban whose challenge was upheld, is suing.
“A few hours ago, after days of stonewalling plaintiffs’ repeated requests for information, the government announced that it intended to violate the Supreme Court’s instruction,” Hawaii said in a filing Thursday in Honolulu federal court. “It will apply the executive order to exclude a host of aliens with a ‘close familial relationship” to U.S. persons, including grandparents and grandchildren, brothers- and sisters-in-law, fiancés, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.”
If american is a superpower country, why all the phobia? I don’t understand…
TLiT, you should stick to travel topics, an area where you ostensibly have some “expertise”. You’re not very good at the legal/politics thing.
@Gary Does it hurt when you think?
There are very, very few countries which allow unfettered access simply because you have a cousin there or a brother-in-law.
Perhaps the Supreme Court used the pesky little adjective “close” for a reason and didn’t just say any relative will do.
I know you are prone to entering whiny little bitch mode for absurd motives, but this is only for 90 days. Can’t you hit the off switch for a while?
@ Gary – should you rename your blog to View from the Left Wing???
What happened to your trolls? You used to have interesting trolls.
More Fake news. In bed with CNN?
Wow, Gary, you have some real asshats commenting on your post! I think this is a perfectly appropriate topic for a travel blog, and I think J.C. needs a lesson in civics (and maybe kindergarten level manners). It doesn’t matter whether you favor or oppose the “travel ban,” it is illeagal. Hawaii’s filing is spot on. The administration does not get points for blatantly defying the Court, who made its meaning plain with the “mother-in-law” example. Whether you are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, the rule of law ought to be the most important aspect of this. When people like J.C. casting about with insults and misogyny, it goes to show you their level of analysis is probably not worth your time. Keep posting!
Dennis, represents typical one sided thinking, he states, ” It doesn’t matter whether you favor or oppose the travel ban, it is illeagal”. Wow, guess what side Dennis is on?!?! Then he states, “Hawaii’s filing is spot on”, again does anybody care to take a guess at what side Dennis on?!?!
Now if Dennis stays true to form with this type of thinking his response will have nothing to do with what I point out above…..I’ll play the role of the opposition…..Dennis you can always move to Canada with all the “others” who very emotionally threatened to do so…Funny I don’t think I have heard of anybody who has actually followed through on their “promises”…here’s looking at you hollywood!
@Dennis Palmieri If you were an honest chap, you’d return the GED and admit your English level is that of a dyslexic chimp.
The travel ban is not “illeagal” when the Supreme Court said it’s ok. Aside from you considering what you have by porking your cousin a “close family relationship,” the simple fact is that the Supreme Court obviously thinks some family relationships are not “close”. Otherwise, Einstein, they would have just said “relative” or “family relationship”.
Gary,
Please stick to travel blog subject matter. This isn’t CNN. No one comes to boardingarea.com for political propaganda.
When the administration’s handling of this is challenged, and it will be, and if it is deemed to be legal by the high court, would you issue an apology for your baseless clickbait claims of illegality? Or will you just start raving about the next fake controversy? We all shall see.
If all the geniuses knew 1/2 much as they think do, news flash just because you travel does not mean you know anything about what is really going with terrorist and such. So to those who think the ban is a bad thing. Please shut up and let the experts do your thinking for you.
No I am not an expert but know more than 1/2 population about this subject what is really going, I know the courts are wrong they should have strengthened the travel ban.
For those of you who think that the threats about moving to other countries has not been followed up on, I can reassure you they have been. We have relocated and we are aware of 3 other families in our industry in our town who have also already left. When we talked to the moving companies, they said that they are moving many people to Canada but are getting very few back trips, so it is getting expensive to leave.
According to the CIA Factbook on Somalia, each woman has 5.89 children (2016 estimate). Assuming you would include grandparents, uncles, and nieces (three generations) that is 5.89^3=204 people would be included. That does not even include fiances, stepfamily, and so forth.
LOL, suppose a terrorist has 9 wives. He could have (9×5.89=) 53 children. Suppose each of his sons, say 26 has 9 wives. Those sons could have (26x9x5.89)=1,378 children. Ok, that is an extreme, but it illustrates the point.
In any case, if you are a liberal judge, you are against Trump and are resisting the ban, you can probably get most of Somalia though an expanded reading of “bona fide relationship”. Which is of course what they will try to do. Book em Danno.
Let them go to Europe. Europe welcomed them with open arms and what has that got the average European? This is a step in the right direction. Many of these grandparents, and others on tourist visas, never go back, and we’re left holding the bag (pun intended!).
Just because a foreign citizen has a bona fide US relationship with a US person doesn’t necessarily make that person admissible to the US. But to try to ban visas to US persons’ bona fide family members — and I include grandparents and grandchildren of US persons as generally having a bona fide family relationship with a US person — after such court relief was grandted to the Admin is a sign of dealing with a scheming liar. Who else would say that mother-in-laws of US persons should be considered as potentially admissible to the US while grandparents and grandchildren of US persons should not be considered as potentially admissible to the US. Yet that is what the Trumpistas are trying to do when it comes to those who are citizens of the blacklisted countries.
nycman believes that Europe welcomed the citizens of the blacklisted countries with open arms. And yet the fact is that Europe as a whole didn’t welcome the citizens of such countries with open arms and have done what they could legally do to block them from entering or settling in Europe. And even after such blacklisted countries’ persons managed to get into Europe, it’s not like they are being treated as co-equal persons in the host countries in which they live in Europe.
Racist discrimination is rather widely present in Europe. nycman should welcome such bigotry as it seems right up nycman’s alley.
Thanks, Gary. Keep up the good work. Love your comments on travel-related issues. However, I’d like to see a giveaway of something soon, I have yet to win a hotel stay or an upgrade. I’m feeling lucky! Happy Independence Day weekend!
This appears to be a travel blog. Why are you commenting about a political situation here? Maybe keep it to your personal FB page or start a separate political blog. I’m guessing you spoke out against the travel ban when it was enacted and now the Supreme Court has upheld. If you want to alienate a whole bunch of people from your travel blog, keep speaking out on political issues. Your audience will shrink and so will the number of sponsors. I know I’ll never follow you again.
Gary,
It looks like they are just applying has been ICE’s definition of a direct relationship for years so while it might not match with the Supreme Court’s intent, it does make sense at least to those of us with non-US citizen relatives.
The Trump administration is actually taking a broader view of “close” family relationships than is defined the the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. Perhaps those outraged should attempt to change the legal definition rather than complaining about the Administration’s implementation.
What I find most amusing is that the initial and subsequent executive orders have been justified as needing a 90-day ban for our safety. Indeed, the absolute chaos of immediate implementation of the initial travel ban could ONLY be justified by claiming eminent threat from abroad. Unfortunately, the easiest legal argument is that if a 90-day ban were needed for our safety and it’s taken 90 days for the supreme court to allow a partial ban, then we’ve clearly dodged the bullet.
Now, stupidity of this ban aside, there is actually precedent for how the administration is defining “close” relationship. “Close” relations can be sponsored for green cards by a US citizen. Grandparents don’t cut it under our current immigration law. Personally, I would rather have my grandparent than my MIL living with me, but that’s not how immigration law is written.
@omatravel — nothing in the court’s decision tracks this, though, and the supreme court is explicit that the injunction was lifted only for “foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all” — AT ALL.
Wow! Look at all those hurt feelings over accidentally reading about a travel policy on a travel blog!
@Gary – This is closer to annoying TV talking head than informative. Less slant, more facts, please. Whatever your political view, Gary, sharing it with the world doesn’t impress anyone. A more apt article might have focused less on the “illegal” (this is definitely up for debate) aspect/conjecture, and focused more on the administration’s legal interpretation, which is directly relevant to a certain niche group of travelers who may or may not be allowed in the country based on the administration’s interpretation of law. Of course, ultimately, what you write is up to you and I’m still glad to have you here in the world, Gary. Your writing has been highly informative.
I will say, the comments section did not disappoint. Much popcorn was enjoyed. I even wonder if Mr. Blank is Jared…
Logical fallacy, Gary. You should know better.
wow. i came here for a credit card signup link but was annoyed to be reading your political opinion. I guess I will check out another travel blog.
It’s political, but it’s also travel-related. It affects travel if you are one of those directly affected, and it foreshadows similar “bans” by other countries, which will affect more travelers than those already blocked.
It would be political to point out that the claimed reason for the temporary ban was for the Trump administration to review the policies and procedures used for denial or issuance of visas to enter the US; at this point the Trump administration is in its sixth month, well beyond the three month maximum the original ban was to be in place (which was itself extended from the sixty days Homeland Security originally deemed more than adequate for such a review). Failure to have already executed such a review is not the fault of the tourists, relatives, and salespeople who are now banned.
It would be political to point out that “when visas are outlawed, only terrorists will have visas”… Only the law-abiding of those Muslim countries will be affected by the ban. Those willing to pay for false papers are not particularly affected, since they will use documents from countries not included in the ban.
A travel blogger with no legal training claims it’s illegal. Well that’s enough for me, round up the leftist mob, time to go set stuff on fire (as is the usual leftist mob response to inflammatory misinformation that later proves to be incorrect)
How does this not relate to travel? Sounds like a lot of people are pissed off about the problems the new prez is causing for travelers. (Laptops, visas, Cuba, etc.)
I would be pissed off at myself if I had voted for him. Who knew?
the power of words are amazing especially coming from president trumps mouth on immigration issues………look at the stats of people illegally crossing the border down 70 percent…….even if the wall never gets built saying it will tells illegals they need to go about coming here the legal way……same with this travel ban………..visa applications are way down……….again, just by trump talking tough on coming here sends the message that the united states does not have an open door policy anymore………….brilliant!………MAGA
As loathe as I am to get into it . . .
@J.C. —> Regardless of one’s political perspective, a factual correction: the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has *not* many ANY sort of ruling concerning the legality or illegality / the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the proposed regulations hereinafter known as the “Trump Travel Ban.” SCOTUS merely a) agreed to hear the Administration’s appeal of the rulings on the Appellate level which CONSISTENTLY has ruled the travel ban unconstitutional as written; and b) PARTIALLY lifted the temporary injunction the lower courts have issued, thus allowing PARTS of the ban to take effect PENDING the hearing and final ruling by SCOTUS.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
a) It’s always important to keep one’s facts straight; b) it’s even more important to keep one’s civility.
First, I have no problem with Gary Leff raising this issue. He is not telling us to go out and demonstrate against the travel ban or anything.
Second, I find it interesting is that since Trump was elected, it is my impression, there are more people defending a conservative agenda than before. During the Obama Presidency, conservative views were pounded (with personal attacks) into submission, whenever they dared comment.
Third, Jason Brandt Lewis (“Jason”) said “It’s always important to keep one’s facts straight” and also said “Appellate level which CONSISTENTLY has ruled the travel ban unconstitutional as written.” By that, it sounds like Jason is confident the Supreme Court will assuredly find the travel ban unconstitutional. Jason, could you please confirm that that is your conclusion? Actually, I am also kind of curious, Gary how do you think the Supreme Court will rule? Dennis Palmeiri? GUWonder?
@Jason Brandt Lewis You forget to follow your own advice. Keep your facts straight.
The Supreme Court said it’s ok as they have tailored it for the time being. The Supreme Court generally hears cases where appellate courts do not CONSISTENTLY agree. Scratch your head a bit and try to think of a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case that has been CONSISTENTLY decided correctly by lower courts.
Assuming you and Gary didn’t suffer the same reading teacher in grade school, you might see where the Supreme Court criticizes at least one lower court’s injunction. Hint: “But the injunctions reach much further than that …”.
@Gary The only thing explicit here is either your inability to read at above a third-grade level or your propensity for lying. Pick one. The only real question is whether your issue is congenital or not.
You need to read the entire opinion and not just the dumbed-down whiny little bitch version. Try the part where it further explains what is required: “For individuals, a close familial relation- ship is required.” Pay particular attention to that pesky little qualifying adjective “close”.
The part you deceptively quote is not where the Supreme Court tailors their order. “But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.” This is critique to the errors of the lower courts.
Gary, stick to something you have a reasonable chance of success at such as advising which credit card offers provide the most benefit for certain segments of travelers. Leave the rest to those who are not idiots and whiny little bitches.
@J.C. —> I apologize. I should have known it was impossible for you to refrain from name-calling and insults in your posts. Apparently, it’s much easier to lower my expectations of you and your posts, than for you to lift your level of discourse.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
@Other Just Saying —> You asked me to confirm whether I think SCOTUS “will assuredly find the travel ban unconstitutional.” I am not confident of ANYTHING when it comes to this Court.
As I said above, up until now, courts have been very consistent in ruling against the travel ban and/or issuing injunctions preventing the ban from taking effect. Since the very first ruling, I have “known” the issue would end up in SCOTUS, and once there, nothing is “assured.” There is a “conservative” majority on the Court, and there is never any guarantee that a Court will rule one way or the other.
@Jason Brandt Lewis –> Apology accepted. If you decide to improve your reading comprehension skills, I might be inclined to be nicer.
(Well, THAT’S highly unlikely, but I look forward to being proven incorrect.)
Yes, I also believe you will be able to learn to read better.
Typo. I believe it’s unlikely you will be able to read better.
@Jason Brandt Lewis (“Jason”). Since you will not predict how the Supreme Court will rule, that suggest that you think they will rule that the travel ban was for the most part constitutional. I can hear you protesting that you weaseled your way out any prediction. Seriously, if you were forced to make a $10,000 bet, you would bet that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the travel ban. Man up.
It is my opinion that the activist anti-trump left wing Federal and Appellate judges relied on some very creative reasoning related to standing, extending of the Bill of Rights to people living in other countries, ignoring the actual text of the travel ban, and the authority of the courts over the issue. Therefore, I predict that the Supreme Court will rule that the travel ban was constitutional (albeit with some slight modification as there always is with any Supreme Court ruling). Moreover, the ruling will not even close, with a 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0 majority. In other words, I fully expect the Supreme Court to body slam the rulings of the anti-Trump left wing Federal and Appellate courts that Jason cited. Afterwards, Trump will most likely issue a victory tweet, causing the left wing media to have conniptions. I already have popcorn ready to watch the show.
First of all, you asked me a question — I answered it. WTF is this “man up” bull$#|+? Secondly, I’m not stupid enough to bet $10,000 on a sure thing, let alone as something as “fickle” as a future Supreme Court ruling.
Finally, because I am — just ask my wife — a pessimist by nature¹, I would bet (if using Monopoly® money) that SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump’s travel ban, especially in light of Trump being able to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. The ruling will be 6-3.
This will also be one of those rare occasions when I believe that stare decisis should be ignored and the ruling overturned at a later time, albeit then probably moot.
_______________
¹ IIRC, it was Ben Franklin who opined that — and I’m paraphrasing here — as a pessimist, he was rarely disappointed, and pleasantly surprised when things went well; this, versus being constantly disappointed and rarely happy.
The Hawaii court has addressed the issue and says grandparents may be excluded. So you were 100 percent wrong.
@ColRebSez: A somewhat minor distinction, the Federal District Court says they will defer definition to the Supreme Court itself rather than agree that the definition includes grandparents.
In any event, the score is now Common Sense 1, Whiny Little Biatches 0.
The District Court’s ruling is bizarre, and wrong on its face, they say that only the Supreme Court can interpret its own ruling but nearly every ruling directs lower courts to reconsider a decision in light of a ruling (interpret the supreme court’s ruling).
You may think Hawaii’s position had no merit, I think it does, but the Court didn’t rule on the merits at all and instead punted in a way that regardless of your position on the ban makes no sense from the judiciary.
@ColRebSez that is NOT what the Hawaii court said at all, they simply declined to express a judgment. I’d expect an appeal to the 9th circuit.
@Gary Half-assed legal calls par for the course for you? Stick to what you can do somewhat well — telling us what credit cards give the most points.
@J.C. if you disagree with me, MAKE AN ARGUMENT. I offered an explanation of why the District Court’s ruling (1) wasn’t on the merits, as another commenter seemed to suggest and (2) differed from how such things normally work. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE I’M WRONG?
It’s not enough just to say my suggestion is “half-assed” you need to actually say WHY.
The 9th Circuit has summarily dismissed Hawaii’s appeal. Time for TLiT and the other leftist legal scholars here to find something else to whine about.
More Trump winning.
MAGA.
AND…. the 9th circuit sent the case back to the District Court, ruling that the judge erred in refusing to interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling and apply it to the administration’s order.
@Gary Has there ever been a time in recent history where you haven’t been a liar?
Regarding the 9th Circuit’s decision, they did NOT rule there was any error in the District Court’s decision. Grab your Literacy Volunteer and try to wrap those 2 legal brain cells of yours around the following:
“Finally, we note that although the district court may not have authority to clarify an order of the Supreme Court, it does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s order, as well as the authority to enjoin against, for example, a party’s violation of the Supreme Court’s order placing effective limitations on the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction. Cf. United States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy, 192 F.2d 62, 79–80 (9th Cir. 1951). But Plaintiffs’ motion before the district court was clear: it sought clarification of the Supreme Court’s June 26 order, not injunctive relief. Because the district court was not asked to grant injunctive relief or to modify the injunction, we do not fault it for not doing so.”
And while you are at it, revisit the Supreme Court decision. I know English is a struggle for you, but again ask your Literacy Volunteer to help you with the following:
“We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion. See infra, at 11–12. ”
Key word: bona fide.
But then the Supreme Court goes on to give further clarification:
“The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relation-ship is required.”
Close. If there weren’t limitations inherent in which family relationships were sufficient, why state “close”? That modifier would have been totally unnecessary were they to think that all types of relatives would qualify.
I realize this is rocket science for you made even more difficult by your utterly complete lack of legal training, but when you dive into something other than your extensive experience in offering advice about how much credit card points are worth, please consult someone smarter than you — with at least an IQ of 7. Harambe would be a safe bet.