Hawaii Federal Judge Just Undermined the Supreme Court on the Travel Ban

Late last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge to President Trump’s refugee travel ban.

And in their decision the justices slapped down lower court injunctions by allowing the ban to remain active until the hearing.

They permitted one exception: immediate family members.

But now another Hawaii federal judge decided he knows better than the Supreme Court and expanded their exception to include any family relation.

The problem with that, of course, is many foreign governments in the Middle East don’t have sophisticated social security systems as in the U.S. that could verify family relationship.

Which is just one reason why allowing refugees en-masse from terror-laden countries is so dangerous.

But that apparently is of less concern than assuaging leftist, politically correct police.

So it’s deja vu all over again.

Here’s more from Redstate…

A week ago U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson in Hawaii denied an emergency motion challenging President Donald J. Trump’s so-called travel ban. Hawaii and a local imam sought to have grandparents and other relatives exempt from the executive order, which the Supreme Court allowed to partially be implemented in June.

Yesterday, a week later, Judge Watson decided differently and chose to rule on  the relationship question instead of deferring to the Supreme Court as he said he should just last week.

The emergency  motion, was filed by Hawaii and a local imam challenged the new guidelines issued by the State Department to implement the Supreme Court June 26, 2017 ruling which lifted parts of lower court injunctions blocking Trump’s Executive Order to remain in place. The guidelines revised rules about who will be admitted as refugees or from the six suspect countries targeted in President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States and the President’s March 6, 2017-revised version of the order, which narrowed the scope of his original order.

The motion, meant to again disrupt President Trump’s executive orders, asked Judge Watson to clarify what the United States Supreme Court meant by a “bona fide” relationship in its ruling last month. Specifically the plaintiff’s wanted the definition bona fide relationship expanded beyond the definition of parents, siblings and spouses established under federal immigration law and previous court rulings to include grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles.

You Might Also Like