Trump ‘Remain in Mexico’ Asylum Rule Continues, Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Injunction
Feared border surge avoided, as Wuhan coronavirus spreads
The Supreme Court, once again, has put on hold a lower court injunction trying to prevent Trump from exercising his lpower over who enters the country.
Amy Howe reports:
Today the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s application for permission to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, colloquially known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, while it appeals to the Supreme Court. Announced in December 2018, the policy allows the Department of Homeland Security to return immigrants seeking asylum to Mexico while they wait for deportation proceedings. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only justice to note publicly that she would have denied the government’s request.
The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court last week, after a federal district court in California blocked the government from enforcing the policy anywhere in the United States. The policy, the district court ruled, is likely inconsistent with both federal immigration law and the doctrine of international law barring the return of asylum seekers to countries where they may be in danger. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision and barred the government from enforcing the policy in California and Arizona; the 9th Circuit’s order was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow.
The Order provides:
19A960 WOLF, SEC. OF HOMELAND, ET AL. V. INNOVATION LAW LAB, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the district court’s April 8, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.
The so-called ‘Remain in Mexico’ order is of particular importance with the Wuhan coronavirus spreading, as if the rule were removed, people claiming asylum — even frivolously — would have been able to stay almost indefinitely in the U.S. There was a fear that if the rule were removed, there would be a border surge complicating public health efforts.
A judicial flip-flop is causing chaos at the southern border.
US authorities shut down a bridge in El Paso, Texas, late Friday after a federal appeals court dealt a sharp blow to President Trump’s border-enforcement strategy — then suspended its order hours later.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a program that requires Central American migrants to wait outside the US while their asylum cases are pending.
More than 100 migrants stormed the Ciudad Juarez-El Paso border bridge as word of the ruling spread in the Mexican camps where at least 25,000 asylum-seekers are waiting, authorities said.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sounds like Schumer got some backlash already. Or, am I just hopeful.
I think this decision was a foregone conclusion. He may get his comeuppance when an abortion case hits the court.
A positive development necessary to mitigate progress at both ends of the bridge and throughout. A step to normalize emigration reform, including: no man, woman, or child left behind, and no refugees following a trail of tears. Shared responsibility was really shifted responsibility, democratic gerrymandering, and redistributive change.
Take that Chuck Schumer.
Chuck the Dried-out Schmuck!
If I was Kavanaugh or Gorsuch I would be trembling in my shoes! I mean, after all, Schumer has threatened to come after them Brooklyn style whatever that means. Now he and Pelosi have vowed to not allow any tax breaks to aid people from virus harm because it would help Trump. What a gang!
No, if I were them I’d be issuing dozens of assert warrants for Chuckie and everyone cheering on his “death threats.”
Snark snark snark!
This example of reality (corona virus) intruding into what, for many of the sheltered elite, was an abstract academic argument in which the unaffected elites were able to preen and pose their supposed enlightened beliefs without direct personal consequences will be a joy to watch unfold.
Will some of these folks finally realize that their preferred policy choices put the nation at risk? Maybe not all but some of them for sure. We will naturally continue to be lectured by the remainder on how our views are xenophobic, racist, Xist, Yphobic etc.
Still, some of those folks will be personally impacted via the corona virus. Unfortunately, it will take that to bring a measure of common sense. Hopefully this won’t take a huge toll. From what we have see this virus will be burning out over the next 4-8 weeks maximum baring some mutations. Yes it will get worse, but that will be the crest, followed by a rapid decline as mitigation efforts ramp up in proportion. Assuming, of course, that folks take basic prevention and transmission steps.
Hopefully, they’ll catch the Wu-Wu Virus from their illegal Mexican maids, cooks, nannies, gardeners and chauffeurs.
SCOTUS to the Ninth Circuit: The Supreme Court really is the highest legal authority in the land and our precedent applies in your circuit as well.
Predictably, the oh-so-wise latina on the court dissented.
Sotomayer also dissented in Shuttee v Bamm – Her dissent stated that the Michigan constitution which required compliance with the 14th amendment was unconstitutional.
A real legal scholar, that one!
Ginsburg joined sotomayers dissent in Shuttee
Also noteworthy of the esteemed legal scholar is Ricci v deStefano.
Could you see the wires and control cables allowing her to move?
schuette v bamn maybe?
This is great news, now I want to know when we are going to start tossing the rest of the illegals out.
How about instituting a policy that legal immigration has to be offset with ten illegals being expelled for each legal brought in?
Allow deadly force to be used to repel those trying to enter illegally.
Plug the anchor baby loophole.
J.D., 30 million upvotes.
You need something that not only sounds good, but has a political chance. I would turn it around and be vastly more generous. For every illegal expelled, the allowed legal immigration goes up by one person legally admitted (which could allow for some of those expelled legally returning).
Time to impeach district court/ appellate judges.
Nationwide injunctions are usurpations. They won’t listen to SCOTUS, so we need to go to the next disciplinary step, since SCOTUS refuses to rein in the lower courts. These after the fact orders are too little too late. Everyone expects every Trump decision to be suspended by the courts now and they’re right.
We elected Trump. Courts, get over it.
“Time to impeach district court/ appellate judges.”
We need to win back the House first, with enough of a majority to overcome the GOPe vote. That is improbably this year. We also need enough Senate seats to overcome the GOPe members. That won’t happen this year under any circumstances. Meanwhile, SCOTUS is our only backstop, although we’re gaining in the appeals courts.
“Nationwide injunctions are usurpations.”
True. I’ve said so many times.
“These after the fact orders are too little too late.”
Actually, this one is just in time, even if a lot of time was wasted getting it to SCOTUS.
“”Everyone expects every Trump decision to be suspended by the courts now and they’re right.””
Judges have lifetime appointments and virtually no rein on their rulings except for appeals courts. The best cure for that is to re-elect Trump and keep the nominations coming.
As a practical matter, I hear you.
But really, it’s time for Trump to ignore Barr and his genuflecting to courts.
The courts were alleged by the Founders to be the “weakest” branch. How did that work out for us?
Channel Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to pound sand, and do what constitutionally he’s permitted to do: Be President.
Daniel Horowitz over at Conservative Review has written excellent analyses on the this. And the little courts acting as one-man continual constitutional conventions has become tiring and really reminds me of dancing transsexuals, they’re so happy with prancing about with their usurped powers.
“”it’s time for Trump to ignore Barr””
No, he’s the AG and he works directly for the Donald. It’s time for Trump to either instruct or direct Barr to do what Trump wants him to do. If he doesn’t like it, he can quit or be fired – although Trump seems to be very shy about firing people.
I don’t disagree that Trump could just ignore those lower court rulings – or even SCOTUS. Of course the immediate result would be another set of impeachment articles, but everybody knows those are just a dead end.
I like Horowitz, but I haven’t paid much attention to NR since they went full anti-Trump.
If he wants to ignore Barr, but let Barr play in the sandbox while he’s busy, that works in the real world.
As for NR, I haven’t read it since Kevin Williamson said poor whites should die. When was that infamous column?
Does Daniel Horowitz write for them also? I wouldn’t know it.
If you aren’t reading his analysis on the courts, you’re on poor feed indeed!
Why is it so hard for social engineers to understand title 8?
That is such a great photo!
This is good news, but the race mongers will be back when things are clamer. Most of the country will never know this happened at such a crucial time for border security (when a health challenge presents itself).
Trump was correct when he reminded Mexico that international provided that refugees were only entitled to stay in the first country they arrive at, no pick and choose who has the better welfare program.
I recall being tested for a number of communicable diseases BEFORE I was qualified for my immigrant visa and granted entry into the US.
I also had to prove that I had the means to support myself and did not have ties to politically radical groups.
Lawful immigration and comprehensive screening never struck me as xenophobic or a partisan issue.
The policy, the district court ruled, is likely inconsistent with both federal immigration law and the doctrine of international law barring the return of asylum seekers to countries where they may be in danger.
These eminent legal scholars apparently failed high school geography, since they can’t tell the difference between the various countries south of our border.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a program that requires Central American migrants to wait outside the US while their asylum cases are pending.
Got that? The migrants are fleeing Central America, not Mexico.
… and no, Mexico is not part of Central America, which consists of the following seven countries: El Salvador, Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
We should send them Bernie, I’m sure he can show them how to do Socialism “right”.
The Ninth Circus rides again. PDJT needs to keep salting that Fools Gold mine with Conservative judges and put that LIEberal snake pit out of business once and for all.