BREAKING… Supreme Court gives Trump huge win on asylum cases…
Posted by Kane on September 11, 2019 7:47 pm

Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of asylum limits

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 in the 9th Circuit.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelernt wrote the administration’s change in asylum rules is “tectonic,” and “would eliminate virtually all asylum at the southern border, even at ports of entry, for everyone except Mexicans.”

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breakin...n-asylum-cases/



Continue reading at SCOTUS Blog…

Zitat

---

The Trump administration won a major (if, at least for now, only temporary) victory on immigration today at the Supreme Court. The justices gave the government the go-ahead to enforce a new rule that would bar most immigrants from applying for asylum if they pass through another country – such as Mexico – without seeking asylum there before arriving in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had blocked the government from implementing the new rule in Arizona and California, but now the government can enforce it nationwide while it appeals a decision by a federal judge in California to the 9th Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. Tonight’s order drew a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

The government came to the Supreme Court seeking emergency relief late last month. The Trump administration wanted to be able to implement an interim rule that it had enacted to address the crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border. U.S. Attorney General William Barr explained that the rule was aimed at reducing the “burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of” immigrants along the southern border while carving out exceptions to protect immigrants who legitimately fear torture or persecution in their home countries.

SCOTUS allows government to enforce restrictive asylum rule nationwide

---

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #3

---

************

Sotomayor holds an incorrect and galling "activist" opinion regarding who should decide these matters.

Should the elected President or an unelected 9th Circuit, lower court, have the final say? For an activist judge, when the decision made has their approval, all appeals should cease, right then and there! No more appeals, not even to the Supreme Court!

She obviously thinks the radical, activist lower courts with their injunctions should decide matters of public policy and hold sway, binding the duly elected President of the United States.

What an IDIOT!!!

The BIG question, did she hold that pov when her president was in office?

---