WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the State of Hawaii to respond by Tuesday at noon to President Donald Trump's motion to block a judge's ruling that prevented his travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies, the court's public information office said on Saturday.

In a court filing on Friday, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday's decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration's temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

The latest round in the fight over Trump's March 6 executive order, which he says is needed to prevent terrorism attacks, began when the Supreme Court intervened last month to partially revive the two bans, which had been blocked by lower courts.

The Supreme Court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a "bona fide relationship" to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred. The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

Trump banned travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and refugees for 120 days.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

Oh good, a keyboard warriors legal opinion.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 20^th, 2017 at 10:34am:


Better than a ferkwit that doesn't give one at all... posting sweet nothings to get his post count up...

What a flog 🙄

The US supreme court handed a partial victory to the Trump administration on Monday as it lifted significant elements of lower court orders blocking the president’s controversial travel ban targeting visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries.

Refugee admissions nearly halved as supreme court mulls Trump travel ban.

The nation’s highest court said the 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, along with a 120-day suspension of the US refugee resettlement program, could be enforced against those who lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”............

“An unadmitted and nonresident alien...has no constitutional right of entry to this country”, the justices wrote, and “whatever burdens may result from enforcement” of the entry ban ”against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts........"

Panther wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 12:48pm:


And SCOTUS still agreed with Hawaii.

get over it, pan-cake

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2017 at 12:50pm:


Isn't that what you should be doing.......pancake...getting over it. After all you're not an American are you......pancake?

.......The travel ban went into effect June 29 following the high court's ruling. It restricts travel from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and limits all refugee admissions for 120 days.

The justices previously agreed to decide the overall legality of the ban in the fall, while allowing the scaled-down version to go into effect. The court ruled that travelers from the six targeted countries can bypass the travel ban and enter the U.S. if they can prove they have a "bona fide" relationship with a U.S. person or entity........