Hawaii has week to respond to Trump request to reinstate full travel ban: court

Hawaii has week to respond to Trump request to reinstate full travel ban: court
© Getty Images

The Supreme Court is giving the state of Hawaii until next Tuesday to respond to the Trump administration’s request that the court allow the full version of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect.

The court’s Public Information Office said a response has been requested and is due by noon on Nov. 28. 

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled last week the administration could bar the entry of people from  Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Chad, but only if they lack a connection to the U.S. 


The court said people with a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the U.S., including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins,” could not be banned. 

The government had asked the 9th Circuit court to stay a district court order that largely blocked Trump’s new targeted restrictions on immigrants from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea, as well as certain government officials from Venezuela. 

The order from Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson carved out an exemption for Venezuelan officials and immigrants from North Korea.

He said the latest travel ban suffered from the same maladies as the previous 90-day ban on nationals from six majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, which the Supreme Court largely reinstated in June. 

In appealing to the Supreme Court on Monday, the administration argued the president’s Sept. 24 proclamation is different from the president’s previous travel ban in process and substance.

“The proclamation covers different countries than the prior orders: it removes one majority-Muslim country; adds other countries, some of which are not majority-Muslim; and excludes various nonimmigrant travelers from all but one of the majority-Muslim countries,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in his request to the court.

“These differences confirm that the Proclamation is based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus.”