This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/15/supreme-court-hawaii-tuesday-trump-travel-ban-motion

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Supreme court gives Hawaii till Tuesday to answer Trump travel ban motion Supreme court gives Hawaii till Tuesday to answer Trump travel ban motion
(13 days later)
District judge ruled ban not applicable to some travelers and refugees
Administration asked highest court to overturn that ruling
Reuters in Washington
Sat 15 Jul 2017 21.13 BST
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
View more sharing options
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
Close
The US supreme court has asked the state of Hawaii to respond by Tuesday at noon to Donald Trump’s motion to block a ruling that prevented his travel ban from being applied to grandparents of US citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies, the court’s public information office said on Saturday.The US supreme court has asked the state of Hawaii to respond by Tuesday at noon to Donald Trump’s motion to block a ruling that prevented his travel ban from being applied to grandparents of US citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies, the court’s public information office said on Saturday.
In a filing on Friday, the administration asked the supreme court justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a US district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.In a filing on Friday, the administration asked the supreme court justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a US district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.
The latest round in the fight over Trump’s 6 March executive order, which he says is needed to prevent terrorist attacks, began when the supreme court intervened last month to partially revive the ban, which had been blocked by lower courts.The latest round in the fight over Trump’s 6 March executive order, which he says is needed to prevent terrorist attacks, began when the supreme court intervened last month to partially revive the ban, which had been blocked by lower courts.
The supreme court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a US person or entity could not be barred.The supreme court said then that the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a US person or entity could not be barred.
The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based US district judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based US district judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.
Trump’s March order banned travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for 120 days. A first order in January also banned travellers from Iraq: it was blocked after a chaotic rollout provoked mass protest and organised acts of defiance.Trump’s March order banned travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, and all refugees for 120 days. A first order in January also banned travellers from Iraq: it was blocked after a chaotic rollout provoked mass protest and organised acts of defiance.
The supreme court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the US constitution.The supreme court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the US constitution.
Trump travel banTrump travel ban
Trump administrationTrump administration
US domestic policyUS domestic policy
US politicsUS politics
US supreme courtUS supreme court
US constitution and civil libertiesUS constitution and civil liberties
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content