Industry Reaction: Association of Corporate Travel Executives executive director Greeley Koch
“There are reasons to be heartened by the Supreme Court’s decision today, in particular the provision that would allow travelers with legitimate ties to the U.S. to continue to enter the country. But the key to successful implementation—and to minimize the impact to businesses—is clearly defining the ‘significant business or professional obligations’ that will allow travelers with proper documentation to enter the U.S. and keep the economic engine running. We will be eagerly awaiting clarity until this issue can be definitively resolved.”
Updated Thursday, July 20, 2017, 12:14 p.m. ET — The United States Supreme Court has refused the Trump Administration's request to stay Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision to broaden the definition of "bona fide relationship." The administration said it had used immigration law to exclude grandparents, aunts, uncles and other family connections from the scope of that term, but the lower court challenged that interpretation by asking the court how the order should be enforced. The Supreme Court advised the Ninth Circuit Court to review any outstanding issues in this case, signalling that the high court could be inclined to defer to lower court rulings on further challenges until it hears the travel ban case in full in October.
______________________
Updated Thursday, July 14, 2017, 9:11 a.m. ET — After declining last week to clarify the interpretation of "bona fide relationship" in the Supreme Court's June 26 decision that cleared the way for President Donald Trump's travel ban order to take partial effect, U.S. District Court judge Derrick Watson issued a decision late Thursday that grandparents, aunts, uncles and other individuals that the Justice Department excluded from the term "bona fide relationship" should be included within the scope of the term. The change came after Doug Chin appealed the request to the Ninth Circuit Court, which also denied to make a decision, based on the grounds that there was nothing to appeal, since Watson had declined to take up the issue. However, the Ninth Court also provided a way forward—that the challengers should reframe their request, not in terms of clarification, but in terms of enforcement and return to the federal court with the request. In doing so, the Ninth Court indicated that the federal court would be within its power to issue a decision.
The challengers reframed and resubmitted their request to Watson, who issued the decision. "Common sense, for instance, dictates that close family members be
defined to include grandparents," he wrote. “Indeed, grandparents are
the epitome of close family members. The government’s definition
excludes them. That simply cannot be." The Justice Department has claimed that it drew its interpretation from immigration law. If the government decides to appeal, the case would be heard in Ninth Circuit, which so far has shown a disinclination toward the travel ban.
______________________
Updated Thursday, July 13, 2017, 11:23 a.m. ET — The interpretation of the term "bona fide relationship" was in court just days after the Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump's travel ban to take partial effect on June 29. Hawaii attorney general Douglas Chin objected to the Department of Justice's interpretation that close relatives like grandparents, aunts and uncles were not included in the term and appealed for their inclusion to U.S. District Court judge Derrick Watson. Watson, however, declined to make a decision on the matter, saying that questions about the interpretation of "bona fide relationship" were the purview of the Supreme Court. As a result the Department of Justice's interpretation of the term will stand.
_______________________
The Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump a victory
on Monday by granting the Department of Justice's request to stay the twin
injunctions, most recently upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court and the Fourth Circuit Court, that have impeded the president's Executive Order 13780
Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States since
it was slated to take effect on March 16.
The scope of the relief was narrow, however, and read more
like a win for those challenging the executive order in that the court denied
application of the executive order to individuals from the six predominantly Muslim countries included
in the ban—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen—"who have a
credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United
States." The court went on to explain that a "bona fide
relationship" may be interpreted to mean family members, a company, a
school or university or other U.S.-based organization that could be harmed by
not allowing such an individual into the country. The decision even specified
that a bona fide relationship would include, for example, a lecturer invited to
address an American audience.
Consequently, the ban will apply only to individuals who have no
prior connection to the U.S. and to those who would attempt
"to enter into a relationship simply to avoid the [executive order]."
In making these distinctions, the court has made enforcing the ban difficult, as
justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas voiced in a partial
dissent to the decision. For the Trump administration, however, the ruling clears the way for the ban to
move forward while the parties await formal arguments, which are scheduled for the
first session of the court's October Term 2017.
Industry Reaction: U.S. Travel Association EVP Jonathan Grella
"As the
Supreme Court considers the legal merits of the President Trump's executive
orders on immigration, we continue to urge the administration to draw a
brighter line between its efforts to bolster national security and its desire
to continue attracting valuable international business and leisure travelers. ... An overt message of welcome that
accompanies tough talk aimed at terrorists and visa overstayers would do a lot
to sustain and grow the immense economic benefit that comes from international
travel to the U.S."
In granting a stay on the injunctions, the court also
started the countdown clock for the Trump administration to conclude its
immigration process review and vetting of the six countries included in the ban.
Even from the beginning of the travel ban fray, which started on Jan. 27 with the
signing of the first "travel ban" order, restrictions were to be
limited to a 90-day period for travel immigration and a 120-day period for
refugee immigration—with the exception of Syria, whose citizens were
originally to be banned indefinitely from entering the U.S. but in the revised order
issued in March were subject to restrictions in line with the other
countries.
In starting the clock, the Supreme Court has all but
guaranteed the 90-day ban on travel visa suspensions will expire before formal
arguments are made in October. Indeed, the decision stated "we fully
expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its
internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the
90-day life of [the order]."
In crafting this decision, the court has hinted that the case
could be moot by the time formal arguments are to be made. This would allow the
court to punt on the major constitutional issues that emerged from the executive order, namely, the extent to which the Establishment Clause can be
applied, whether the reach of executive power in applying national security
measures is truly unfettered and whether executive statements—or tweets—made
outside the language of an executive order can be considered in determining underlying motivation for
the order itself.