老澳门开奖结果

A federal judge in Hawaii on Thursday night to stop the Trump administration from enforcing its irrational interpretation of the Supreme Court鈥檚 order that allowed a limited part of the ban on individuals from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect.

Judge Derrick Watson rejected the government鈥檚 effort to prevent grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and other close relatives of people in the United States from entering the country, describing the administration鈥檚 cramped view as the 鈥渁ntithesis of common sense.鈥� He also directed the government to honor what has been clear from the day the Supreme Court issued its order: that thousands of refugees already have a bona fide relationship with U.S.-based resettlement organizations. This ruling will make an enormous practical difference for tens of thousands of families.

Two federal appeals courts have found that large portions of the current ban on refugees and nationals of six Muslim countries 鈥� 鈥淢uslim Ban 2.0鈥� 鈥� were illegal. In the case brought by the 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the ban 鈥渄rips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.鈥� On June 26, the Supreme Court granted review of both cases and will hold oral arguments in the fall. We remain confident that the justices will ultimately conclude that any version of the Muslim ban violates our fundamental values.

For now, Judge Watson鈥檚 sensible ruling properly tracks the Supreme Court鈥檚 strict limitations on the temporary ban before a final ruling is made on its constitutionality. The justices said that it could apply only to those who have 鈥渘o connection to the United States at all鈥� and could not bar anyone who can 鈥渃redibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.鈥�

But the Trump administration disregarded the limits imposed by the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling. The court specifically noted that a wife or mother-in-law would 鈥渃learly鈥� qualify as a close family member. Yet the administration insisted against all reason that other similarly close relationships 鈥� a grandparent or aunt, for example 鈥� would not qualify. Judge Watson repudiated the government鈥檚 bizarre and arbitrary position, pointing out that 鈥済randparents are the epitome of close family members.鈥�

The government鈥檚 position on refugee resettlement agencies was no better. The Supreme Court said that the ban cannot be imposed on anyone who has a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity. The court also explained that such a relationship is 鈥渇ormal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading鈥� the ban. Yet the Trump administration arbitrarily said that some relationships with organizations do not count 鈥� specifically relationships with organizations that are preparing to resettle a particular individual or family in the United States. Judge Watson also rejected this made-up exception. These agencies have formal and documented relationships with the refugees for whom they rent apartments, arrange medical care, and prepare other services. As Judge Watson explained: 鈥淏ona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.鈥�

The government has decided to appeal Thursday鈥檚 ruling and said it will take the issue directly to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the government has apparently the first steps toward imposing a possible indefinite ban against people from these or other countries. It is doing a 鈥渨orldwide review鈥� of which countries do not, in its view, provide sufficient information to screen their nationals for visas and other immigration documents. Under the terms of President Trump鈥檚 order, that 鈥渞eview鈥� may end up in a permanent ban against these six, or perhaps other, countries.

For the moment, however, common sense has prevailed 鈥� at least for those with grandparents and grandchildren, aunts and nephews, brothers and sisters-in-law subject to the travel ban.