Trump travel ban racks up another courtroom victory

A Hawaiian judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration defending the restrictive definition of "close family relationships" used in his travel ban. The ruling was handed down Thursday evening.

Hawaii state attorneys called the restrictions "preposterous," and asked the court to clarify the definition, hoping to expand the relations to allow entry to grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews of persons legally in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ruled that the travel ban could continue with the Trump administration's definition of family relationships.

"Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017, injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here," Watson declared in the ruling.

The Supreme Court earlier ruled that President Trump's travel ban could be partially implemented while they take up the case for deliberations.

Critics of the ban say that it's unconstitutional based on previous statements made by then-candidate Trump on the 2016 campaign trail, promising a "Muslim ban" to great acclaim and applause. Once he ascended to the Oval Office, however, the Muslim ban was reconstituted into a "travel ban" that restricted those attempting entry from states that were designated by the Obama administration as being of "concern" over terrorism.

Trump's campaign promise comments have been cited in judgments from courts that originally ruled against his first travel ban and the re-written travel ban.

Three Supreme Court justices agreed with the majority decision that the travel ban should be partially implemented, but also said that it should have been completely implemented. This prompted Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) to refer to them as three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, a derisive biblical reference.