The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three judge panel unanimously voted against restriction to deny a temporary exemption to extended family members under President Trump’s travel ban. The decision was based on a case that allowed a mother in law entry, yet didn’t allow others with either similar or same family connections.
The judges said in a joint opinion:
“If mothers-in-law clearly fall within the scope of the injunction, then so too should grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins,” the three judges continued, “The Government 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 decision will surely be challenged; a Justice Department official said Thursday, that “The Supreme Court has stepped in to correct these lower courts before, and we will now return to the Supreme Court to vindicate the executive branch’s duty to protect the nation.”
For many advocates of the President’s travel restrictions, it seems that the 9th Circuit is deliberately hindering policy of the Executive branch without just cause. Previous decisions by the 9th Circuit have already been overturned by the United States Supreme Court, and White House officials are positive that this will follow the same pattern. One source said:
“The president’s travel order is well within his legal authority and keeps our nation safe,” the official, said under the condition of anonymity. “The Department of Justice will vigorously defend it.”
Critics of the ruling are already suggesting that their decision was politically biased; all three judges, Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez, were appointed by former President Bill Clinton. They argue that if the ruling had real legal merit, then other courts would agree with them. This begs the question, why are cases against the travel ban being brought in the 9th Circuit? Considering the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned by the Supreme Court of all the Courts of Appeal.
The ruling also covered issues related to refugee resettlement numbers. Under former President Barack Obama, the figure was set at 110,000 refugees; President Trump wants this lowered greatly. Very few voices in government have made a cogent argument on either side for the number of people coming in, with all parties ignoring the fact that refugees and Asylees are two different categories. Under US law, there is no upper limit on Asylum seekers that can be granted the right to stay.
Mark is a political writer and journalist who has worked on campaigns for Brexit.