U.S. Court Deals Blow To Trump Travel Ban

NAFTA Negotiators Get Down To Business After Tough Talk From Trump
US President Donald Trump speaks to the American Legion national convention on August 23, 2017 in Reno, Nevada. Nicholas Kamm / AFP

A federal court in California dealt a new blow on Thursday to the Trump administration’s travel ban, ruling that some refugees must be allowed into the country.

It is the latest twist of the legal wrangling touched off by President Donald Trump’s ban, first announced in January with little notice and widely criticized as discriminatory against Muslims. Trump says it is needed to keep out terrorists.

In the new ruling, the US Ninth Circuit of Appeals, based in San Francisco, upheld a ruling by a court in Hawaii, a decision against which the administration had appealed.

The new decision states that the ban must exclude “refugees who have a formal assurance from an agency within the United States that the agency will provide or ensure the provision of reception and placement services to that refugee.”

It could pave the way for the entry of some 24,000 refugees whose asylum requests had already been approved.

And as the US Supreme Court had ruled in July, the three-judge panel in San Francisco confirmed that the ban cannot be applied to grandparents and other close family members living in six mainly Muslim countries and seeking to visit relatives in the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled in late June that the 90-day travel ban, purportedly aimed at better screening out potential security risks, can be broadly enforced for travelers from the six mainly Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

Days later, the Trump administration interpreted that to mean that only “close family” was exempted. It defined this as the parents, spouses, children, sons- and daughters-in-law, siblings and step- and half-siblings of people in the United States.

The California court said Wednesday the administration “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 San Francisco court was ruling on the issue because the Supreme Court had refused a Justice Department request that it define what it means by “bona fide relationship” and “close family.”

The Justice Department issued a statement saying “we will now return to the Supreme Court to vindicate the executive branch duty to protect the nation.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to revisit the travel ban and study its constitutionality in October.


Source: https://www.channelstv.com/2017/09/08/275581/

Share this post on social media


  1. author

    Awurum Clifford3 months agoReply

    I hope this doesn’t escalate to something else

  2. author

    jerry Ebby3 months agoReply

    maybe they are planning another strategy

  3. author

    Adegbite Segun3 months agoReply

    What is trump upto now

  4. author

    love Owhor3 months agoReply

    good information

  5. author

    Praise Unyime3 months agoReply

    Trumpet rethink your decision and reverse d reversible

  6. author

    kayode oyebanji3 months agoReply

    Trump no dey try

  7. author

    Blessing Olayiwola3 months agoReply

    trump should just chill

  8. author

    Philip Hezekiah3 months agoReply

    Nice information.

  9. author

    Samuel IbeOjo Okoh3 months agoReply

    I hope this does not turn to something else

  10. author

    john victor3 months agoReply

    Nice information.

1 2

Leave a comment "Short, spam link, irrelevant and double comments will be trashed later. Dont let your effort go to waste. Avoid one word and words like: hmmm, wahoo, okay, ok, abbreviation etc... Please give a reasonble and helpful feedback, type something relevant. Thank you."