The Briefing Room
General Category => Immigration/Border => Topic started by: To-Whose-Benefit? on June 20, 2017, 06:27:22 pm
-
dailycaller
Kevin Daley
Legal Affairs Reporter
12:03 PM 06/20/2017
[excerpt]
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/20/federal-judge-forced-to-scale-back-trump-travel-ban-ruling/
A federal judge in Hawaii on Monday narrowed the scope of an injunction he issued in March, after an appeals court concluded his initial order was too broad.
U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson’s March order prohibited the Departments of State and Homeland Security from reviewing federal vetting procedures and preparing reports recommending additional security measures for migrant and refugee entry. Per his new order, State and DHS may begin those reviews, provided they “do not burden individuals outside of the executive branch of the federal government.”
Watson’s order put the administration in something of a bind — the government’s stated rationale for interrupting migrant entry for 90 days was to assess the strength of its vetting processes. The administration claims this assessment is essential for the nation’s continued security. Critics charged that the government was not being forthright about the order’s true objectives, as it had not yet conducted these “vital” policy reviews — but it was Watson’s order that prohibited them from doing so in the first place.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the injunction was overly-broad last week.
-
How come a judge gets a do-over without penalty, but a defendant doesn't?