Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Hawaii Attorney General, June 29, 2017 - "This afternoon the State of Hawaii asked federal district Judge Derrick K. Watson to clarify the scope of the travel and refugee bans in Hawaii v. Trump in light of Monday’s ruling from the United States Supreme Court.
On Monday the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments later this year in appeals from two lower court decisions that had blocked certain portions of the travel and refugee bans from taking effect. The Court also made clear that the travel ban could not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, including those with a “close familial relationship.” The same standard applies with respect to refugee admissions.
In response to late guidance issued by the federal government as to how it intends to implement the bans, Hawaii’s motion asks the court to clarify that the federal government may not enforce the controversial bans against fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of people currently living in the United States.
Today’s motion also states that lawyers for the plaintiffs in both lawsuits, after the Supreme Court ruling, repeatedly asked the Trump administration to indicate how it intended to implement the bans. The federal government did not respond until the information was publicly posted, hours before the partial bans are set to go into effect. Attorney General Chin said, “In Hawaii, ‘close family’ includes many of the people that the federal government decided on its own to exclude from that definition. Unfortunately, this severely limited definition may be in violation of the Supreme Court ruling.”
A copy of the motion is attached."