Home / US / Supreme Court clears way for new asylum restrictions to come into force

Supreme Court clears way for new asylum restrictions to come into force

Wednesday's order is a great victory for the administration, which argued that the rule was necessary to shield "asylum seekers who refused to seek protection at the first opportunity."
"GREAT US Supreme Court WINS for the Border Against Asylum!" President Donald Trump said on Twitter .

The rule, from the Departments of Justice and Home Security, prohibits migrants who have lived in or traveled through third countries from seeking asylum in the United States, and therefore barring people traveling through Mexico from being able to apply for asylum.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted their dissent. Five justices were needed to grant the request. the voices of others were not publicly announced.

"Once again, the executive branch has issued a rule aimed at upholding long-standing practices regarding refugees seeking protection from persecution," Sotomayor wrote with Ginsburg, later referring to "some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere." [1

9659006] GOP senators who are not ready to embrace Kushner's immigration plan ” data-src-mini=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-small-169.jpg” data-src-xsmall=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-medium-plus-169.jpg” data-src-small=”http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-large-169.jpg” data-src-medium=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-exlarge-169.jpg” data-src-large=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-super-169.jpg” data-src-full16x9=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-full-169.jpg” data-src-mini1x1=”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190911173741-01-jared-kushner-immigration-small-11.jpg” data-demand-load=”not-loaded” data-eq-pts=”mini: 0, xsmall: 221, small: 308, medium: 461, large: 781″ src=”″/>

"Although this nation has long kept its door open for refugees – and although the efforts for asylum seekers could not be higher – the government implemented its rule without first making public announcement and inviting the public intervention that was generally required, "added Sotomayor. [19659004] The Supreme Court's decision is the latest step in a case that has been hoped for between lower courts.

Late Tuesday evening, a federal judge's attempt to issue a nationwide ban on asylum restrictions was blocked, in part, for the second time by the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals.

Midway back and forth, the Ministry of Justice had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

In his dissent, Sotomayor criticized both the implementation of the new regulation and the majority to decide before the 9th Circuit could fully resolve the government's urgent request to put the district court's ban on standby.

"The Court," Sotomayor wrote, "lasts the ordinary judicial process."

Steve Vladeck, CNN's highest court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, agreed that the judges allow the administration to "jump in the queue."

"The Supreme Court once again allows a controversial Trump administration policy to come into effect even when the legal challenges to politics go through lower courts," Vladeck said.

The Trump administration has been harshly critical of what it sees as a relatively new legal phenomenon where a single district judge stops a policy across the country before it can sue through the lower courts and reach the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, Attorney General William Barr wrote a statement in the Wall Street Journal, pointing out that 20 nationwide injunctions were issued during the Obama administration, while the Trump administration "has already met nearly 40."

He said that nationwide injunctions create an "unfair, one-way system in which the democratically responsible government has to foreclose case after case to implement its policies, while those who challenge the policy need only find a single sympathetic judge."

American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that it will continue to challenge the rule. "We will continue to challenge the ban on merit, as it puts countless lives at risk," said ACLU's attorney Lee Gelernt.

Source link