The order, by District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, is a fresh legal blow to Mr Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judge said the ban had interpreted a Supreme Court ruling too narrowly.

That decision, made last month, partly reinstated the ban on refugees and travellers from six Muslim-majority countries.

It said only those with “bona fide” family ties would be let into the US.

But the Trump administration decided that did not include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and cousins.

Judge Watson, however, disagreed – and ordered that those restrictions should not be enforced.

The judge condemned the government’s definition of a close relative as “unduly restrictive”.

“Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be defined to include grandparents. Indeed, grandparents are the epitome of close family members”,” he wrote.

Mr Trump’s ban on travel to the US for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been controversial since its announcement.

The Supreme Court is still considering the current version of the law, and allowed a temporary ban to come into effect in June pending their full judgement.

Mr Trump says the restrictions are needed to keep America safe and prevent terror attacks.

However, critics including states and refugee advocacy groups have said the ban discriminates against Muslims.

An initial version of the ban, published in January, sparked mass protests at airports and a series of legal challenges that prevented its implementation.

Mr Trump drafted a new version in March, dropping Iraq from the list of countries, clarifying the position of “green card” holders, removing priority for “religious minorities” in mostly-Muslim countries, and softening a tough stance on Syrian refugees.

But courts struck down the new version within days, with a Virginia court claiming it was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims.

That prompted the Trump administration to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling, where conservatives hold a majority of five to four.

The nation’s highest court allowed the ban to go ahead temporarily, until it makes a full decision in October.

–

Source: BBC

The post Trump travel ban: Judge expands definition of ‘close relative’ appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Mr Trump signed an executive order placing a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim countries on Monday.

New York maintains the new directive is a ban on Muslims while Washington says it is harmful to the state. Oregon and Massachusetts later also joined.

The ban begins on 16 March, with the White House saying it is “very confident” of winning in court.

Mr Trump’s original order was more expansive but it was defeated after a legal challenge initially mounted by Washington and Minnesota.

What states this time and why?

Oregon – said the order hurts residents, employers, universities health care system and economy

Washington – it has “same illegal motivations as the original” and harms residents, although fewer than the first ban

New York – “a Muslim ban by another name”, said the attorney general

Massachusetts – new ban “remains a discriminatory and unconstitutional attempt to make good on his campaign promise to implement a Muslim ban”

Hawaii – argued it would harm its Muslim population, tourism and foreign students

The revised ban bars new visas for people from: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen. It also temporarily blocks all refugees.

The previous order, which Mr Trump signed in January, was blocked in federal courts and sparked mass protests as well as confusion at airports.

But critics maintain the revised travel ban discriminates against Muslims.

“President Trump’s latest executive order is a Muslim ban by another name, imposing policies and protocols that once again violate the Equal Protection Clause and Establishment Clause of the United State Constitution,” said New York Attorney General Eric T Schneiderman after announcing his legal challenge.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who was the first to sue over the original ban, said he would ask a federal judge to rule that the temporary restraining order halting the first travel ban “remains in effect”.

“We’re asserting that the president cannot unilaterally declare himself free of the court’s restraining order and injunction,” he said.

Though the White House has faced mounting criticism over its immigration orders, Trump supporters say the president is fulfilling his campaign promises to protect Americans.

What is different about the new order?

Citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the other six countries on the original 27 January order, will once more be subject to a 90-day travel ban.

Iraq has been taken off the banned list because its government has boosted visa screening and data sharing, White House officials said.

The new directive says refugees already approved by the State Department can enter the US. It also lifts an indefinite ban on all Syrian refugees.

Green Card holders (legal permanent residents of the US) from the named countries will not be affected.

The new order does not give priority to religious minorities, unlike the previous directive.

Critics of the Trump administration had argued that this was an unlawful policy showing preference to Christian refugees.

–

Source: BBC

The post More US states challenge Trump travel ban appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.