Ninth Circuit Sides With Hawaii, Rules Grandparents Exempt From Trump's Travel Ban
The court upheld a district court ruling that said grandparents of U.S. citizens and other family members of U.S. residents are exempt from President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order.
September 07, 2017 at 06:02 PM
5 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that family members of those in the United States, including grandparents and children-in-law, are exempt from President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order.
The court on Thursday disagreed with the government's argument that, under a June order from the U.S. Supreme Court, only parents and parents-in-law, spouses, children, siblings, engaged couples and step-relatives were exempt. The high court's order stayed lower courts' injunctions against the ban except with respect to people with “close familial relationship[s]” in the United States.
The Ninth Circuit's opinion said the government “unreasonably interpret[ed] the Supreme Court's reference to 'close familial relationship[s].'”
“It is hard to see how a grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, sibling-in-law, or cousin can be considered to have no bona fide relationship with their relative in the United States,” the decision said.
Also at issue was whether “formal assurances” by some refugee resettlement agencies, in which they agree to work with certain refugees when they arrive in the United States, counts as a bona fide relationship. The court again sided with Hawaii, allowing those refugees to be exempt from the ban.
“Although the assurance is technically between the agency and the government, the government's intermediary function does not diminish the bona fide relationship between the resettlement agency and the specific refugee covered by the assurance,” the decision said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman said the government will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court has stepped in to correct these lower courts before, and we will now return to the Supreme Court to vindicate the executive branch's duty to protect the nation,” she said in an email.
The Ninth Circuit decision said the court will enter its mandate solidifying the decision in five days, instead of the typical 52, due to the dire situation facing most refugees.
“Refugees' lives remain in vulnerable limbo during the pendency of the Supreme Court's stay,” the decision said. “Refugees have only a narrow window of time to complete their travel, as certain security and medical checks expire and must then be reinitiated. Even short delays may prolong a refugee's admittance.”
The judges, Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins, are the same three who ruled in June that Trump did not have the authority to issue the travel ban order in the first place.
Hawaii was represented by a team of lawyers from Hogan Lovells, led by partner Neal Katyal and argued by associate Colleen Roh Sinzdak. Hashim M. Mooppan represented the government.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute read'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readNewsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250