The Trump administration’s revised travel ban faced a new court challenge as soon as it took effect Thursday after the president’s signature immigration policy already weathered months of protests, legal wrangling and delays.
A new set of restrictions on refugees and immigrants from six predominantly Muslim countries took effect at 8 p.m. EDT. The administration said the rules should help prevent the chaotic airport scenes witnessed when President Donald Trump’s initial order was abruptly imposed in January.
But a half-hour before the ban took effect, Hawaii asked a judge to clarify whether the government violated instructions from the U.S. Supreme Court in defining who’s covered by the ban and who’s excluded. The U.S. Justice Department declined to comment.
If implemented as intended, the travel restrictions would allow Trump to declare partial victory on his campaign promise to stem the flow of refugees and travelers from nations he deems a security risk. Lower court decisions to block two of his proposed travel bans were early, public defeats for the administration in its initial weeks.
To minimize disruptions this time, the State Department, Homeland Security Department and Justice Department coordinated in advance to establish clearer guidelines for thousands of consular officers, airlines and travelers. And unlike in January, when hundreds of travelers arriving in the U.S. were turned back or detained at airports, those already holding a valid visa will be let in.
‘Legitimate Concerns’
“The American public could have legitimate concerns about their safety when we open our doors,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said at a briefing Thursday. “We want to open our doors to people who are willing to go through proper screening measures and who want to be here and want to be productive members of our society.”
The latest effort followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that travelers from the six nations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — with “bona fide” connections in the U.S. be exempted from the travel ban. That definition was interpreted to mean that travelers with specific, close family members in the U.S., including spouses, children, and siblings, could be let in. But people whose closest connections are grandparents, aunts and uncles could be barred.
Students or travelers with business or professional ties from the affected countries also are exempt if they can show a relationship that’s formal and documented, and not based on an intent to evade the ban.
Hawaii is now taking issue with how the government defines family ties.
“Our concern is that when you read their definition of what constitutes a close family relationship, they’re cutting out a lot of people,” said the state’s attorney general, Doug Chin. He filed his emergency request for clarification with the same judge, Derrick Watson, who previously blocked Trump’s March executive order from taking effect.
The Supreme Court’s decision also revived Trump’s efforts to suspend refugee admissions for 120 days and to reduce the maximum number of refugees allowed into the country to 50,000 from 110,000. The president has cited the risk of terrorists slipping into the U.S., while critics have said the ban discriminates against Muslims.
Speaking to reporters on background, an administration official said the U.S. needs every available tool to keep terrorists from coming to the country.
The State Department’s official guidance, which was posted on its website, grants significant discretion to consular officers who will approve visas in U.S. embassies and outposts around the world. For example, guidance sent to embassies says that consular officers can determine whether granting a visa to an applicant from one of the six nations would be in the U.S.’s national interest, even if they don’t have the close familial connections normally required.
Yet many of the original criticisms of the ban remain. Administration officials wouldn’t explain why the ban targets the six countries or why refugees are deemed a threat to national security. Of 784,000 refugees resettled in the U.S. since 2011, just three were arrested for allegedly planning terrorist activities, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Criticism was also swift toward the government’s conclusion about what constitutes a “bona fide” family relationship — for example, its refusal to consider grandparent a direct relative. Officials said they were using a definition outlined in the other parts of U.S. law.