![U.S. Supreme Court. / [Image by Phil Roeder via Flickr, CC BY 2.0]](https://staticr1.blastingcdn.com/media/photogallery/2017/7/19/660x290/b_502x220x82/us-supreme-court-image-by-phil-roeder-via-flickr-cc-by-20_1461807.jpg "U.S. Supreme Court. / [Image by Phil Roeder via Flickr, CC BY 2.0]")
Since President Trump signed executive orders for what was initially referred to as a Muslim ban, the federal appeals courts have been fighting with the administration to define the ban, forcing it to end up being debated within the Supreme Court. It wasn't until June 29 that the highest court decided to enforce the travel ban, which restricts travel for 90 days from Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Iran and Sudan. But the Trump administration continues to try and get more, stressing the limits of their powers. Now the fight is over the limits of what would be considered "immediate" family that would be allowed to travel to the United States.
Trump loses fight to ban grandparents
When the Supreme Court decided to uphold -- within limits -- a federal court's order that would allow immigrants from six Muslim countries who were allowed into the U.S; it was reported that the Supreme Court justices rejected the Trump administration's request to clarify a decision they had from June 26. The decision being that close relatives of U.S. citizens and those refugees who had a direction connection to agencies that are involved in resettlement would be allowed.
Prior to going to the Supreme Court, federal judges had initially ordered the expansion of international refugees allowed to enter under the ban. Needless to say, the Trump administration would love to see a more strict travel ban against those Muslim countries already mentioned.
Recently, federal District Judge Derrick Watson decided that more distant relatives like grandparents would be allowed for the time being. Many of those traveling from countries targeted by the administration were required to prove they have a bona fide relationship with immediate family members. Here is one report by CBS news about the details of that decision.
Temporary place holder for vague Trump policy
For the time being, the justices decided to let a scaled-down version of the ban go into effect while they decide the overall legality of the ban in the fall. Judge Derrick Watson from the lower court initially wanted to expand the list of those allowed to travel to the U.S. which included grandchildren, grandparents, uncles, aunts, in-laws and cousins.
On top of this, Watson also made an effort to allow more refugees, but the Supreme court denied it. As it stands, those who personally matched with a resettlement agency are allowed to enter per the administration's guidelines. Also, it's been reported that much of Judge Watson's order is currently pending a further review by the appeals court.
These specific adjustments to the order by the Supreme Court have no doubt created issues for those traveling who are stuck in limbo who were already in the process of trying to get to the U.S. for instance, Amnesty Internationals' Naureen Shah said that it would effect those thousands who were fleeing war and violence in their countries. The Supreme Court seems to feel that allowing some of the President's travel ban is enough to not pose a constitutional risk while they wait for the administration to show what their policy is for wanting to enforce such a ban.
