Court allows Trump's travel ban to partially come into effect

Federal appeals court allows Trump's third travel ban to partially take effect

US appeals court allows Donald Trump's travel ban to take partial effect

United States appeals court which is in California decided that they will go with Donald Trump's travel ban and support it.

The case concerns visitors from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals partially granted a Trump administration request to block at least temporarily a judge's ruling that had put the new ban on hold. U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang's order was less sweeping, although it also favored travelers with a "bona fide" relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

The connections could be family relationships, allowing grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles etc. of people in the US.

"We are reviewing the court's order and the government will begin enforcing the travel proclamation consistent with the partial stay". The state of Hawaii which had sued to block the restrictions argued that federal immigration law will not give Donald Trump the authority them in all the six nations.

A federal judge in Hawaii had blocked the government from implementing the measure nearly completely, though he said it could be enforced on people from North Korea and Venezuela. The ruling from the 9th Circuit does not affect that schedule but rather allows the government to implement the measure at least partially, on people without any USA ties, until then.

The appeals court's action is a partial stay of a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson of Honolulu that blocked nearly all of the travel ban Trump issued by proclamation on September 24.

In a statement, Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said, "Today's decision today closely tracks guidance previously issued by the Supreme Court". The first was blocked by the courts and the second expired before it could win court approval.

The high court did not define close familial relationship, and the Trump administration said it should be limited to parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fianc├ęs, children, adult sons and daughters, sons- and daughters-in-law and siblings of people in the United States. As a candidate, Trump had promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".

The government appealed in both cases, and oral arguments were set for next month. The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several advocacy groups, including the International Refugee Assistance Project.

Latest News