The Supreme Court hands Donald Trump a partial victory over Hawaii judge’s ruling on the travel ban

  Last week a judge in Hawaii, Derrick Watson, ruled that Donald Trump was misinterpreting the Supreme Court decision which allowed the travel ban to continue pending a hearing during the next Supreme Court session by interpreting the decision too narrowly. Here is more on Justice Watson’s decision:

a federal judge’s decision to allow grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and other relatives of people in the U.S. to circumvent the Trump administration’s travel ban policy.

The order, issued Thursday evening local time in Honolulu by Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, deals a temporary blow to one of the president’s signature initiatives. It also prohibits the administration from blocking refugees with a commitment from a resettlement agency in the U.S., a move that could revive the flow of refugee admissions this year.

Jeff Sessions immediately challenged the ruling to the Supreme Court and today they handed down a mixed decision. Here is more:

The Supreme Court says the Trump administration can strictly enforce its ban on refugees, but at the same time is leaving in place a weakened travel ban that includes grandparents among relatives who can help visitors from six mostly Muslim countries get into the U.S.

The justices acted Wednesday on the administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling last week. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ordered the government to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States. Watson also vastly expanded the family relations that refugees and visitors can use to get into the country.

The high court blocked Watson’s order as it applies to refugees for now, but not the expanded list of relatives. The justices said the federal appeals court in San Francisco should now consider the appeal. It’s not clear how quickly that will happen.

And more:

In the meantime, though, up to 24,000 refugees who already have been assigned to a charity or religious organization in the U.S. will not be able to use that connection to get into the country.

“This ruling jeopardizes the safety of thousands of people across the world including vulnerable families fleeing war and violence,” said Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA’s senior director of campaigns.

That part of the court’s ruling was a victory for President Donald Trump, who rolled out a first ban on travelers and refugees after just a week in office, prompting a legal fight that has raged ever since.

But the Supreme Court also denied the administration’s request to clarify its ruling last month that allowed the administration to partially reinstate a 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on refugees from anywhere in the world.

The court’s ruling exempted a large swath of refugees and travelers with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or an entity in the U.S. The justices did not define those relationships but said they could include a close relative, a job offer or admission to a college or university.

Watson’s order added grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins

  Again, this is a mixed bag for the President’s travel ban but I am still left pondering something that bothers me about this whole story: The original travel ban was for 90 days because, we were told, it would take that amount of time to review the vetting process and yet months have now passed since the initial travel ban was blocked. Donald Trump did not have to wait for a decision on the travel ban before beginning a review of the vetting process so it seems to me the review should have been completed by now despite the fate of the travel ban. What is he waiting for if the refugees are the danger he claimed they were?

 malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium