The state of Hawaii, which already succeeded in temporarily halting President Donald Trump's travel ban, is once again fighting the executive order in federal court.
The state hopes to expand the number of people who can bypass the travel ban and on Friday took its case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeal came after a Honolulu-based federal judge on Thursday denied the same request, saying he would not "usurp" Supreme Court orders that had revived a limited version of the travel ban.
In his order, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said those challenging the ban need to go to the Supreme Court to get clarification on whether the government is appropriately implementing it.
But in its appeal to the 9th Circuit, which twice stuck down the travel ban before a Supreme Court order in June partially resurrected it, the state of Hawaii said that Watson was "simply incorrect."
"District courts routinely interpret the scope of remand orders from a court of appeals or the Supreme Court when the parties dispute their meaning," lawyers for the state wrote.
At issue is which refugees and visitors to the United States can sidestep the ban _ and how to determine whether such people have "close" relatives living in the United States or are associated with the country in other ways that let them bypass the ban.
Although Trump's executive order halts travel by nationals of six majority-Muslim countries and refugee resettlement from all places, it provides exceptions for those with what the Supreme Court called "bona fide" connections with the United States, such as a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, fiance or fiancee and in-law parents.
But the administration blocked grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and brothers- and sisters-in-law. Travel ban challengers asked Watson to force the government to count all of those categories as "bona fide" U.S. connections.
Ban opponents also argue that a resettlement group's interactions with a refugee constitute a bona fide relationship. The administration argues otherwise.
The Trump administration indicated it was celebrating another court win after a series of losses over the travel ban.
"If the plaintiffs elect to proceed, we are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will again vindicate the president and his constitutional duty to protect the national security of the United States," the department said in a statement Thursday.
The ban, which puts a three-month pause on travel to the United States by nationals of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen and a four-month halt to all refugee resettlement, had been blocked by federal judges since an original version of it was signed in January.
Those judges included Watson, who ruled against the ban in a March case filed by the state of Hawaii. Trump administration losses in that case and another filed in a Maryland federal court were upheld in the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit appellate courts before requests were made to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the ban.
On June 26, the Supreme Court said the ban could be put back into place with exceptions. The court suggested its move was a compromise before it heard full arguments on Trump's executive order in the fall.
"We are now in the middle of a 90-day partial travel ban. The Trump administration has reserved the option to extend or even expand the travel ban at the end of it. Many felt the balance struck by the Supreme Court was nuanced and fairly reasonable, but the Trump administration has flouted the Supreme Court's order from the start," Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said in a statement after the state filed its appeal. "What happens in the next several weeks matters a lot if the administration is not subject to the checks and balances of the courts."
Hawaii and other travel ban opponents argue that the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims and is part of the president's campaign promise to suspend all Muslim immigration. The Trump administration says the president is acting within his power to ensure national security while the government develops better vetting procedures for travelers from the countries, which it says have ties to terrorism.
