United States Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of asylum limits
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.
The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.
Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.
The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.
“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.
The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.
That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.
The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.
Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
Sorry your Honor - "Practices" aren't laws - you should know that.
What a pathetic argument that was.
I really can't believe that came from Sotomayer 'cause she's sharp.
Exactly. Who gives a shit what the longstanding practice is? Bribery could be a longstanding practice. That doesn't make it ok, much less binding legal precedent.
I can't believe a Supreme Court justice said that. I really can't.
If people wonder what we mean when we complain about "activist judges" this is one example of that. It's not the only way judges are activist, but it's one way. She wants to dictate to the executive branch what policy within the bounds of legally delegated authority should be. It's hard to imagine a more glaring violation of the separation of powers.
Thank God for that ruling. We have federal judges jumping up & down issuing national injunctions to all things the President has done to try and solve the open border crisis. Something has to be done about them!
So just come by boat I guess...
This is good we have too many problem of our own and are not taking care of our citizens
Here is a link to a pdf of her dissent , if anyone is interested. It's all about her feels on the matter. I you think the SCOTUS is supposed to be interpreting the law and not dictating policy, this should make you a little ill.
I'll also add that Sotomayor attempted to make it seem as if she was applying the facts to the law. However, she blatantly misrepresented what the regulation at issue says. In her dissent, she claims,
That's not true. She's lying. That's not what the rule says. The rule is not limited to a simple assessment of whether refugees traveled in a third country. It bars them from seeking asylum in the US when they have made no effort to seek asylum in that third country (usually Mexico) and they could have before even trying the US.
Here's a link to a text of the rule , which reads:
If you're fleeing persecution and you really need asylum, you apply for it as soon as you can, not after traveling through a couple of perfectly good countries just to get to the nicest one. That's called immigration and we have a different process for that.
She also copies and pastes the government's reason for the rule change, followed by the assertion that they made the change for no reason. Seriously!
Makes sense. Is there more?
Well, sure! That's true! Mexico is a feasible alternative. But Justice Sotomayor found the government's reasoning to be "arbitrary and capricious." She went on to say,
No explanation? What did you just copy and paste then?
She might be a smart lady, but on this issue, at least, she is showing zero integrity.
What is really surprising to me about her comment is that in previous cases, she is "usually" very specific as to the validity and strength of the Laws, as written.
Something's not right in Kansas.
I think she is passionate about this particular issue. At some point, I guess any justice is susceptible to that. Sometimes we get opinions or dissents from them that seem to detach from the law and are mainly about their visceral reaction to the issue.
The good news is that when we do have a dem president they will be able to do whatever the fuck they want! And SCOTUS and the gop will support it all! Got to look at the glass half full. A change will be coming and the Trump shit will all be undone without dissent. Thanks in advance, and do not doubt it will happen.