Supreme Court allows Trump refugee restrictions but rejects ban on grandparents and close relatives


The court’s action on Wednesday had two parts. In one, it said it will not disturb a lower court’s decision that expanded the definition of close family ties.

But in another, it granted the government’s request to put on hold a part of the decision that would have made it easier for more refugees to enter the country.

The court giveth and the court taketh away.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch noted they would have stayed Watson’s order in its entirety.

If this teaches us anything, it’s that Trump’s next pick must be a principled constitutionalist. No trimmers. President Reagan couldn’t know that Justice Anthony Kennedy would be such a disappointment. The same can be said of President Bush and David Souter. Bush expected him to be a reliable conservative, but he quickly emerged as anything but.

John Roberts is worse.

Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban enforcement, but says it must allow broader exemptions for relatives

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again compromised on President Trump’s travel ban, saying the government may enforce tightened restrictions on refugees for now but also must allow into the country more travelers from six mostly Muslim countries who have family members already here.The short order from the court means that the administration must continue to accept those with grandparents, aunts and uncles and other relatives in the United States. The Trump administration had set a stricter interpretation of who could be allowed in under a Supreme Court decision issued last month.The court’s action on Wednesday had two parts. In one, it said it will not disturb a lower court’s decision that expanded the definition of close family ties.

But in another, it granted the government’s request to put on hold a part of the decision that would have made it easier for more refugees to enter the country.

The unsigned, one-paragraph order gave no reasoning for either decision. Three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have granted the administration’s request to put the entire order on hold.

The majority said the government’s appeal of the lower court should go through normal channels, with the next stop at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The court’s decision was the latest action in the Trump administration’s nearly six-month effort to temporarily shut down the nation’s refu­gee program and bar visitors from several Muslim-majority countries while it examines vetting procedures.

While the Trump administration has said the effort was needed to protect the country, challengers have fought it as an unconstitutional effort to ban Muslims, which Trump had advocated during the campaign.

The latest version banned visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It and the refu­gee ban had been put on hold by lower courts.

The Supreme Court on June 26 said it would consider the merits of the challenge in the fall, and in the meantime struck a compromise: The ban could go in effect regarding those without a connection to the United States, but people with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States must be exempted.

The justices did not define such a relationship, but gave examples of what would qualify for the exemption: a close relative in the United States, a spot in an American university, a job offer or speaking engagement.

The three dissenting justices who would have let the administration’s ban go into effect without restriction predicted it would prompt more litigation, and it did.

The Trump administration interpreted the close relative portion of the court’s opinion to refer only to people with a parent, spouse, fiance, son or daughter, siblings, son-in-law or daughter-in-law in the United States. It would continue to bar refugees who had an offer from a refu­gee resettlement operation, which covers about 24,000 waiting refugees.

The challengers went back to U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson of Hawaii, who had earlier issued a nationwide injunction against the ban. Watson ruled last week that the government’s “narrowly defined list” of exemptions was not supported by either the Supreme Court decision or by the law.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson wrote. “Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members. The government’s definition excludes them. That simply cannot be.”

He extended the exemptions to include those with grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. Watson wrote that refugees with an assurance from a resettlement agency are also exempt from the ban.

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to stay Watson’s ruling.

His interpretation of what kinds of family relationships qualify “empties the court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just ‘close’ family members, but virtually all family members,” the administration said in its brief to the court.

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest