PUBLISHED: 6:24 PM 11 Jul 2017

15 States Join Hawaii To Halt Supreme Court Decision On Trump Travel Ban


Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin is determined to challenge the travel ban. This week 15 states joined his latest attempt.

Democrats refuse to capitulate. On Monday 15 blue states joined Hawaii’s desperate attempt to halt President Trump’s travel ban.

I almost pity the left. They’re in a terrible situation. They’ve lost control of Washington and the Trump administration is steadily guiding the country toward valued, conservative ideals. Obamacare is unfortunately still a reality (for now), but the border is becoming more secure and record numbers of illegals have been deported. The economy is surging. 

So it’s no wonder that they’re unwilling to accept the travel ban. They’re desperate for a victory. They managed to successfully entangle the ban in courtrooms for months until its legality was confirmed by the Supreme Court, a move that was highly praised by their base. Monday’s attempt marks the second time that Hawaii has tried to challenge the ruling.

The Supreme Court decision allowed the administration to begin enforcing select parts of the ban. In response, the State Department announced that “parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel to the United States from six Muslim countries. But grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law would be subject to the ban.”


Liberals insist that they oppose the ban, although their reasons for doing so tend to fall apart upon inspection. Muslims aren’t banned from entering the U.S.; the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world weren’t included in President Trump’s executive order.

It’s entirely reasonable. No one is claiming that grandparents aren’t close relatives. Instead, proponents of the ban argue that the political climate is too tense to allow unrestricted access to the U.S. We’re at war with multiple Islamic countries.

Amici have a strong interest in plaintiffs’ challenge to this Executive Order because many of its provisions have threatened—indeed, have already caused— substantial harm to our residents, communities, hospitals, universities, and businesses while courts continue to adjudicate the Order’s lawfulness,” reads the brief filed by the states.

The travel ban lasts for 90 days. Who needs to the enter the U.S. so desperately that they can’t wait three months?

The states are asking a federal judge in Hawaii to rule the Trump administration’s decision to exclude non-immediate family members was a grave mistake. Hawaii’s first effort, spearheaded by state Attorney General Douglas Chin, was dismissed last week by a federal appeals court. Completely undaunted, lawyers working for Chin immediately began drafting a new appeal.


Massachusetts was one of the many liberal states to throw its support behind Hawaii.

The federal government has stated that it intends to recognize as bona fide ‘close familial relationship[s]’ protected by the injunction only a specified list of family relationships, not including grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and siblings-in-law. But nothing in this Court’s injunction or the language or rationale of the Supreme Court’s June 2017 order supports such a restrictive definition of ‘close familial relationship.’”

Your immediate family members are your spouse, children, parents, and siblings. Someone may be close to their siblings-in-law, just like someone can be close to their dentist, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the relationship, while meaningful, does not involve a close blood tie.

The left is focusing on so-called “excluded grannies,” homey old women who just want to come to America to be with their grandchildren. Do such women exist? Perhaps, but Democrats are less explicit about why exactly those women need to come to the U.S. in the next 90 days.


Liberals seem to be willing to protest against anything.

“The artificially narrow line drawn by the federal government will thus likely impair the ability of institutions in the states not only to recruit but also to retain individuals from the affected countries who do not wish to endure the hardship of disruption and separation from family members,” the states argue.

If a foreign applicant can’t handle being separated from his or her grandmother for three months they’re probably not ready to leave their country. And, whether the claim about the travel ban increasing the difficulty of hiring foreign recruits is true or not, it’s an odd thing for American lawyers to complain about. Americans would be better off if employers focused on local talent.