Here is the July 13, 2017 decision and order by the federal district court in Hawaii modifying its preliminary injunction against the partial implementation of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travel and immigration from six majority-Muslim nations and temporarily halting all refugee admissions after the U.S. Supreme Court partially reversed another nationwide preliminary injunction and accepted review of both preliminary injunctions.
On June 26 (the last day of its 2016-2017 term), the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to accept review of the two nationwide preliminary injunctions against the Muslim ban, but then essentially re-wrote the executive order by creating an exception for any individuals from the six Muslim-majority countries who have a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”. In their dissent to that order, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch predicted that this exception would result in additional litigation. The U.S. government interpreted the exception narrowly to only include spouses, fiancés, parents, parents-in-law, siblings, and children, children-in-law.
On July 13, the federal district court in Hawaii issued this decision modifying its preliminary injunction to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision but then 1) expanded the definition of family relationships to include grandparents, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, cousins, siblings-in-law, and grandchildren, and 2) included refugees who had an individualized “formal assurance” of resettlement (or sponsorship) from a refugee resettlement agency as bona fide relationships.
The U.S. government immediately requested the the U.S. Supreme Court issue an emergency “stay” or halt to this latest decision and modified preliminary injunction.
Ignatius Bau 