Time to replace the black robed social justice warriors ruling with feelings and not the law.
Outraged reactions poured in Friday to federal Judge Derrick Watson’s order effectively nullifying the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of President Trump’s travel ban by holding the administration’s definition of a “bone fide relationship” invalid.
Watson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, ruled Thursday that narrowly interpreting the term “close familial relationship” from the Supreme Court’s decision reinstating the travel ban.
The Supreme Court left in place part of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction blocking the travel ban, allowing those from the the six Muslim-majority countries designated in the president’s Executive Order 13780 to enter the United States if they have a bone fide relationship with someone who resides here.
The State Department quickly issued a guidance limiting that exception to a “parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling” living in the United Sates. Watson found this unexceptable and ruled that the government must continue to allow in fiancés, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins.
A concurrence by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito had predicted exactly this type of litigation when the Court used such general language in reinstating to travel ban. Dale Wilcox, Executive Director of the patriotic immigration law firm Immigration Reform Law Institute, told Breitbart News:
Judge Watson’s latest order was absolutely predictable. Given the failure of Roberts, Kennedy, and the liberal justices to state precisely what they meant by “bona fide relationship”, Watson was able to stretch the term out as much as he wanted.
It’s also exactly what Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito warned about in their concurrence. The others could’ve listened, but didn’t.
“Judge Watson’s order renders the Supreme Court’s decision all but a dead letter,” wrote Center for Immigration Studies’ Andrew Arthur in a Friday post excoriating Watson’s decision.