The Trump administration is returning to the Supreme Court in an effort to overturn lower court rulings crimping the application of President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order. Such a relationship can arise from a close family member in the United States, or from something like a job offer from an American company or an offer of admission to an American university.
In a 75-page Supreme Court filing, the administration did not contest the latter ruling, but said because it has already received 24,000 "assurances", or resettlement requests, from agencies "the Ninth Circuit's decision renders" an earlier Supreme Court decision to stay previous lower court rulings "inoperative".
And once again, the Justice Department is appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court - this time arguing that the government should not have to exclude from the ban grandparents or other close family members of people within the United States, along with refugees sponsored by American resettlement organizations, while the case is pending before the court.
The debates here, now before the Supreme Court, have centered around what constitutes such a "bona fide relationship". The Justice Department said it disagreed with that interpretation, but noted the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to disturb that finding pending appeal.
Thursday night, the 9th Circuit Appellate Court struck another blow to Trump's second, scaled down travel order.
Trump signs his immigration executive order limiting residetns of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. Image courtesy of Reuters
Trump administration lawyers told justices on Monday that changing the way it enforces the policy on refugees would allow "admission of refugees who have no connection to the United States independent of the refugee-admission process itself".
"The government began implementing the Order subject to the limitations articulated by this Court more than two months ago, on June 29, which entailed extensive, worldwide coordination among multiple agencies and the issuance of guidance to provide clarity and minimize confusion", Wall wrote.
The high court on June 26 cleared part of the ban to take effect in the meantime, while saying the US had to admit at least some people with close relatives in the U.S.
The countries that weren't supplying adequate information were then to be given 50 days to begin doing so, and after that, top USA officials were to give Trump a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a more permanent travel ban.
Time is beginning to become of a factor in the broader fight over Trump's travel ban, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear arguments October 10.More news: Belgium 1st European team to reach 2018 World Cup
More news: Arsene Wenger Could See Nightmare Exodus at Emirates on Deadline Day
More news: Gas Prices To Continue Rise As Key Southeastern Pipeline Runs Intermittently