Hawaii has filed a challenge to the State Department’s implementation of President Donald Trump‘s traveling prohibit, quarrelling the administration’s guidelines for what relationships to the U.S. are necessary to continue travel to the country.
Hawaii is challenging guidance issued by the State Department on Wednesday that says travelers from the six banned countries must have formal ties or close family relationships with person or an entity within the U.S. Having familial ties” does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiances, and any other’ widened’ family members ,” the guidance told.( The State Department later told fiances would, in fact, count as close family .)
In its motion, Hawaii asked a federal magistrate to clarify that the Trump administration can’t enforced those outlaws.
” The country of Hawaii is entitled to the enforcement of the injunction that it has successfully protected, in large component, up to the Supreme Court — one that safeguards the State’s residents and their loved ones from an illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order ,” reads the state’s motion.
” In Hawaii,’ close household’ includes many of the person or persons that the federal government decided on its own to exclude from that definition ,” told Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin.” Unfortunately, this severely limited definition may be in violation of the Supreme court ruling .”
Trump signed the executive ordering, which seeks to ban travel to the U.S. for most nationals of six Muslim-majority countries for 90 periods and suspend refugee resettlement for 120 periods, in March.
The travel ban went into effect Thursday, three days after the U.S. State supreme court ruled to partially reinstate a watered-down version of it before the court hears controversies on its constitutionality in October.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court specified that the ban could be implemented with the exception of individuals who have” a believable assert of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United State .” The court, nonetheless, did not specify what qualifies as a “bona fide” relationship, thus leaving the matter up to State Department interpretation.
In March, Hawaii became the first nation to sue to block Trump’s second attempt at a traveling forbid, which included citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, all majority-Muslim countries. In its suit, the government “re saying it” universities would be hurt by the ban because they would struggle to recruit faculty and students. It likewise argued that the prohibitions would have a detrimental effect on tourism, critical to the state’s economy.
A federal magistrate in Hawaii sided with the government in a March 15 ruling, placing a nationwide hold on key aspects of the ban hours before they were to take effect. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said the ban likely violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause forbidding the government from favoring or disfavoring one religion over another.
Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude … that the stated secular is the subject of the Executive Order is, at the very least, secondary to a religion objective of temporarily suspending the enter of Muslims ,” Watson wrote.
In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, citing the president’s tweets.
”[ T] he President lately substantiated his assessment that it is the’ countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s’ travel proscription ,'” reads the 9th Circuit ruling.
This is a developing narrative and has been updated.