Trump asks Supreme Court to strike down injunction against his travel ban
by Anna Giaritelli and Ryan Lovelace | Sep 11, 2017, 12:57 PM
The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and block a federal appeals court ruling imposing an injunction against President Trump's modified travel ban.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected the Trump administration's interpretation of which family members are permitted to enter the U.S. under the portion of the travel ban that the Supreme Court allowed to take effect. The travel ban temporarily blocked foreign nationals from coming to the U.S. from six Muslim-majority countries unless they have certain family ties in the U.S., a move the Trump administration said is needed to ensure national security.
A federal judge in Hawaii first blocked the government's petition to have the ban cover close family and extended relatives. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that ruling last week, frustrating the Trump administration's attempt to add definition about who would be covered by the ban, and who would not.
"Stated simply, 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," ruled the 9th Circuit Court on Thursday.
The Trump administration, however, believes the Supreme Court should halt the 9th Circuit's most recent ruling pending argument from the court, in part because the 9th Circuit ordered that the government stop implementing its ban.
"The court of appeals' decision — which will take effect at approximately 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow (September 12, 2017) because the court drastically shortened the time for issuance of the mandate — will disrupt the status quo and frustrate orderly implementation of the Order's refugee provisions that this Court made clear months ago could take effect," wrote Jeffrey Wall, acting solicitor general, in the Monday filing. "The [Supreme] Court should not permit its rulings to be frustrated in that fashion, and it should not allow the 'equitable balance' it carefully struck to be upset while the merits of the injunction are pending before it. The Court can and should prevent further uncertainty and disruption by staying the court of appeals' ruling with respect to refugee assurances."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2634018
