Hawaii Judge Defies Supreme Court On Travel Ban

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s June ruling was a provision that allows individuals with a “bona fide” close family relationship to seek visas to enter the United States from the six affected countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen.

The White House had previously said the ban would not apply to citizens of six countries with a parent, spouse, fiancé, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling already in the U.S.

The interpretation of a “close family relationship” led Watson to flip flop on his rulings in the space of one week.

On July 6, Watson denied an emergency motion from the State of Hawaii and a local imam seeking to have grandparents and other relatives exempt from the executive order. He was clear in why he ruled that way:

This Court will not upset the Supreme Court’s careful balancing and “equitable judgment” brought to bear when “tailor[ing] a stay” in this matter. [. . .] This Court declines to usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court to interpret its own order . .”

Hawaii then appealed Watson’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court said Watson’s ruling was not appealable under federal judicial laws.

However, the 9th Circuit said Watson had the authority to interpret the Supreme Court’s order and block any violation of it. Hawaii then renewed its request with Watson in a different form.

Exactly one week later, Judge Watson reversed himself and decided to tackle the relationship issue after deferring to the Supreme Court earlier. He ordered the United States to not to enforce the travel ban on “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S.”

Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents,” Watson said in his ruling. “Indeed grandparents are the epitome of close family members.”

The Trump administration sprung into action immediately, filing a notice of appeal at the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing it to use a rule to petition the Supreme Court directly.

The Justice Department said in its appeal that Watson’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on what family relationships qualify refugees and visitors from the six suspect countries to enter the U.S. “empties the [Supreme] court’s decision of meaning, as it encompasses not just ‘close’ family members, but virtually all family members. Treating all of these relationships as ‘close familial relationship(s)’ reads the term ‘close’ out of the [Supreme] Court’s decision.”

Consider this: we have a flaky judicial tyrant in Hawaii who openly defies the rulings of the highest court in the land and ignores U.S. law that unconditionally gives the president of the United States total authority to limit immigration into the country as he or she sees fits.

Rogue judges who make rulings on personal whims and political agendas are eroding Americans faith in our legal system, which more and more shows little to no respect for the separation of powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

Source: Wall Street Journal, Red State