The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration's appeal to broaden the scope of its "Muslim Ban 2.0" to grandparents and other close relatives, partially staying a ruling on the travel ban by a federal court in Hawaii.
But the High court put U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's decision to stop the administration from including in its travel ban refugees with formal assurances from resettlement organizations on hold pending a ruling from the federal appeals court in San Francisco on the issue.
The mixed ruling prompted demands from rights group that the ban be nixed entirely.
The decision from the Supreme Court, said Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA senior director of campaigns, "jeopardizes the safety of thousands of people across the world including vulnerable families fleeing war and violence."
"On top of that," she continued, "this prolonged legal battle is creating further distress and confusion for ordinary people who need to visit the U.S. to get medical attention, reunite with family, or get an education. No part of this cruel and discriminatory ban is reasonable. Congress must intervene and end the ban once and for all."
According to Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, it's good that the high court's decision requires "the government to recognize grandparents and other close family remains in place," but he said his organization is "deeply concerned about the effect of today's ruling on thousands of refugees who seek to escape dangerous situations, who have been fully vetted by the United States, and whose arrival communities, congregations, and organizations in the United States have been preparing for and anticipating."
"We look forward to eradicating the entire Muslim ban, which is unconstitutional and repugnant to our most basic values as a country," he continued.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the travel ban in October.