Trump's travel ban too restrictive, U.S. appeals court rules
Grandparents, aunts, uncles should not be prevented from entering the U.S., judges say
A U.S. federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration's limited view of who is allowed into the country under the president's travel ban.
The unanimous ruling from three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said refugees accepted by a resettlement agency should not be banned. The decision upheld a ruling by a federal judge in Hawaii who found the administration's view too strict.
"Stated simply, the government does not offer a persuasive explanation for why a mother-in-law is clearly a bona fide relationship, in the Supreme Court's prior reasoning, but a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew or cousin is not," the ruling said.
- As Trump travel ban takes effect, lawyers mobilize at Canadian airports
- Trudeau touts open Canadian immigration system in face of Trump travel ban
The appeals panel wrote that under typical court rules, its ruling would not take effect for at least 52 days. But in this instance, the judges said, many refugees would be "gravely imperiled" by such a delay, so the decision will take effect in five days.
"Refugees' lives remain in vulnerable limbo during the pendency of the Supreme Court's stay," they wrote. "Refugees have only a narrow window of time to complete their travel, as certain security and medical checks expire and must then be reinitiated."
The Justice Department said it would appeal.
"The Supreme Court has stepped in to correct these lower courts before, and we will now return to the Supreme Court to vindicate the executive branch's duty to protect the nation," the agency said in a statement.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in June that President Donald Trump's 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced pending arguments scheduled for October, partially overturning lower-court rulings. But the justices said it should not apply to visitors who have a "bona fide relationship" with people or organizations in the U.S., such as close family ties or a job offer.
The government interpreted such family relations to include immediate family members and in-laws, but not grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles. The judge in Hawaii overruled that interpretation, expanding the definition of who can enter the country to the other categories of relatives.
The Hawaii judge also overruled the government's assertion that refugees from those countries should be banned even if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in.
The administration argued that resettlement agencies have a relationship with the government, not with individual refugees. The appeals court rejected that, focusing on the harm the travel ban might impose on people or organizations in the U.S.
Resettlement agencies have spent time and money securing rental housing, buying furniture and performing other tasks that would be in vain if the refugees were blocked, the 9th Circuit said. They also would lose out on government funding for the resettlement services.
Lawyers for the government and the state of Hawaii, which challenged the travel ban, argued the case in Seattle last week.
Deputy assistant attorney general Hashim Mooppan ran into tough questions as soon as he began arguing the government's case, with Judge Ronald Gould asking him from "what universe" the administration took its position that grandparents don't constitute a close family relationship.
- Injunction against Trump travel ban upheld by appeals court
- U.S. Supreme Court allows partial travel ban to take effect
Judge Richard Paez similarly questioned why an in-law would be allowed in but not a grandparent.
"Could you explain to me what's significantly different between a grandparent and a mother-in-law, father-in-law?" Paez asked. "What is so different about those two categories? One is in and one is out."
Mooppan conceded that people can have a profound connection to their grandparents and other extended relatives, but from a legal perspective, the administration had to draw the line somewhere to have a workable ban based largely on definitions used in other aspects of immigration law, he said.