//  6/29/17  //  Quick Reactions

The New York Times is reporting that the Administration has issued new guidelines for implementing the Supreme Court’s travel ban compromise, which ordered the Administration to exempt people with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”  Assuming the Times’ description is accurate, it looks like the Administration is not going to make a good faith effort to effectuate the Court's order.

According to the Times, the Administration has drawn the following arbitrary line for what qualifies as a “close familial relationship”:  Nuclear family and in-laws are in.  Any other family—“grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés”—is out.

This reading shows little respect for the Supreme Court’s directive.

First, recognize that the reason that the Court limited the lower court injunctions in the first place was to account for “foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.”  The burden imposed when denying entry is at a minimum when it comes to “a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country.”  Thus, the Court said, what matters is “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” For the Administration to read that reasoning and conclude that a person’s grandparent or fiance in the US is per se insufficient is troubling, to say the least.

Second, the Administration’s interpretation conflicts with the Court’s explanation of who can and cannot be subject to the ban. When defining “close familial relationship,” the Court gave the example of a mother-in-law, and stated that a mother-in-law would “clearly satisfy such a relationship.”  Reasonable people would find it extremely counterintuitive that a person’s mother-in-law “clearly” qualifies as close, but his or her grandparents do not.  In fact, the Administration’s interpretation is even more extreme:  A person’s relationship with his or her grandparents or fiancé is so remote that it is per se excluded from being a “close familial relationship.”  Even if a person was raised exclusively by his or her grandparents, those grandparents would not be considered a “close familial relationship.”

The Supreme Court gave "wife" and "mother-in-law" as its examples because those were the relationships of the particular plaintiffs before the Court. By essentially taking those examples and making them the outer limit, the Administration has frustrated the Court’s desire to protect people who would face similar “concrete burdens” if denied entry.

The State Department seems to be acting as though it were in the position of an administrative agency that will receive leeway and deference to adopt its own preferred interpretation of a particular statute.  It is not. It was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States to ensure that it did not apply its travel ban to certain people.  It should make a good faith effort to listen.  


Immigration Policy Parallels

5/20/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Now that the Trump administration has identified an additional 1700 children separated from their families, it’s time to revisit the administration’s legal arguments for why it was not actually separating families; with new, questionably legal actions that arise practically every day, we cannot let the way the administration has handled the fallout of its immigration policies slip by the wayside.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Hilary Robin Rosenthal

Columbia Law School

Key Context for Trump's Rhetoric About Immigrants

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

President Trump's rhetoric draw upon a familiar narrative that pathologizes immigration and immigrant reproduction as a threat while protecting and supporting the nation’s “good” mothers, families, and neighborhood

Yvonne Lindgren

UCSF Law School

Versus Trump: Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, and More

5/16/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco