HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court says Trump ...

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:18 PM

Supreme Court says Trump administration can begin denying migrants asylum at southern border

Source: Washington Post



The Trump administration can begin denying asylum requests from migrants at the southern border who have traveled through Mexico or another country without seeking protection there, after the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s block on the new restriction. The justices put on hold a lower court’s ruling that the administration’s rule change could not be enforced pending additional legal action because it likely ran afoul of administrative law requirements.

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted their disapproval of the action. “Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” wrote Sotomayor. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”

Trump’s policy is one of the administration’s most significant efforts to deter asylum seekers at the southern border, and it is one of multiple tools federal immigration officials have deployed to prevent families and other asylum seekers from entering the United States. A record number of Central American families have sought asylum during the past year, and most have been released to await court hearings, thwarting Trump’s efforts to curb a new wave of migrants. The Justice Department says more than 436,000 pending cases include an asylum application.

The Trump administration announced the change in July, and four immigrant-rights groups quickly challenged it. A federal district judge in California ruled that the law was likely invalid because it is inconsistent with federal law. He also said it violated the Administrative Procedures Act, and issued a nationwide injunction. A panel of the 9th Circuit said the judge went too far. The policy likely violated the APA, it said, but the injunction should be limited to states within the 9th’s Circuit jurisdiction. That meant the rule change could not be implemented along the California and Arizona borders. The other southern border states, New Mexico and Texas, are in different circuits, and a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official speaking on background said the new rule is being applied in those border areas.

Read more: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-can-begin-denying-migrants-asylum-while-legal-fight-continues/2019/09/11/94b90da4-d017-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html



Full headline: Supreme Court says Trump administration can begin denying migrants asylum at southern border while legal fight continues



Original article -

By Washington Post Staff
September 11, 2019 at 6:15 p.m. EDT

Requiring migrants to seek protection in other countries first is among the administration’s most significant efforts to stem a surge of asylum seekers hoping to enter the United States through Mexico. Immigrant advocacy groups quickly challenged the move after it was announced in July.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/09/11/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-can-begin-denying-migrants-asylum-at-southern-border-while-legal-fight-continues/

23 replies, 2749 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court says Trump administration can begin denying migrants asylum at southern border (Original post)
BumRushDaShow Wednesday OP
hlthe2b Wednesday #1
bluestarone Wednesday #5
barbtries Wednesday #2
Optical.Catalyst Wednesday #3
former9thward Wednesday #9
Amishman Wednesday #12
Optical.Catalyst Wednesday #14
former9thward Wednesday #15
Drunken Irishman Wednesday #17
Polybius Thursday #20
Karadeniz Wednesday #4
Amishman Wednesday #10
MichMan Wednesday #6
pintobean Wednesday #7
Freethinker65 Wednesday #8
former9thward Wednesday #11
LanternWaste Thursday #19
ArizonaLib Wednesday #13
lordsummerisle Wednesday #16
Polybius Wednesday #18
Democrats_win Thursday #21
IcyPeas Thursday #22
Polybius Saturday #23

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:19 PM

1. WHILE LEGAL FIGHT CONTINUES... Lifts an injunction but the issue is not settled.

Still, this is horrific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:38 PM

5. UNBELIEVABLE!!

Sounds more and more like the RETHUGS NOW own the SC!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:20 PM

2. Can't we engage other countries

to stop these crimes against humanity?!

jeez. fuck. FUCK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:32 PM

3. Two illegitimate Supreme Court nominations are now swaying the court to the right

President Obama was cheated out of one nomination for us. Trump should have never been allowed to take office after the Russians secured his election. He lost the popular vote while breaking several law during his campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Optical.Catalyst (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:05 PM

9. The vote was 7-2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:20 PM

12. yup, only RBG and Sotomeyer dissenting

Breyer is a nationalist streak that comes through occasionally, so that doesn't surprise me much

Kagan going with them does

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:35 PM

14. If we had our two nominees, it would have been 4-4 with a swing vote

Trump is poison, and the damage is spreading. I want to see him impeached yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Optical.Catalyst (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:57 PM

15. Who knows what it would have been?

Justice Kagan and Beyer voted with the majority. SC justices do not vote automatically on party lines. Last term 40% of the decisions were 9-0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Optical.Catalyst (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 09:15 PM

17. Who's our two nominees?

Because Kennedy is still on the court if Hillary wins...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Optical.Catalyst (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 12:31 PM

20. Let's assume Kennedy still retires

And let's assume staunch liberals replaced Scalia and Kennedy. We still lose. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Breyer sided with Trump. Where are you getting 4-4?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:36 PM

4. Is this in accord with intl law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karadeniz (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:08 PM

10. international law only applies if we signed a binding treaty, which we usually don't do

and the few we signed lack any enforcement mechanism.

The 1967 Protocol, which we actually did sign, has no real means of penalizing violations.

The only part of the UN with any real power is the Security Council, which wouldn't normally be involved in this type of thing, and even if they did, the US holds veto power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:41 PM

6. Looks like it was a 7-2 decision

"Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted their disapproval of the action."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:52 PM

7. I wonder if the timing is significant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:52 PM

8. Sounds like the circuit court was ruling for border areas outside of its jurisdiction.

Trump's actions violated the law, but the 9th circuit can only issue injunctions on States in its district.

Why weren't Trump's actions challenged in the other district courts as well? I am sure lawyers knew this was a possible outcome by only trying it in the 9th Circuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freethinker65 (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:13 PM

11. The original case was before one federal judge in San Francisco.

His attempts to create a nationwide injunction were rejected by the 9th circuit. Lawyers only filed where they thought they would get a favorable ruling. If they had filed everywhere there would have been split rulings for and against. The fact that the SC is letting the process go forward while the case is litigated means they will probably favor the administration when it gets to the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 11:23 AM

19. "Who knows what it will be?"

"means they will probably favor..."

The diaphanous nature of the potential is tool you seem to use in both directions, predicated only on the convenience it affords you in the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:22 PM

13. When Trump celebrates does order a round of White Russians?

I am thinking it is a given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ArizonaLib (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:59 PM

16. With Trump vodka

if it was still around...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 10:18 PM

18. Breyer and Kagan have sided what the conservatives a few times this year

What is up with that? It seems that we only have two rock-solid liberals on the Court now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 12:43 PM

21. Sotomayor Pens Powerful Dissent

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/justice-sotomayor-dissent-asylum-rule_n_5d79a596e4b0fc715341d629
snips:

"Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.

Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that her colleagues had taken an extraordinary step to allow the Trump administration’s asylum policies to go forward while the case was still under consideration in the federal court system.

“By granting a stay, the Court simultaneously lags behind and jumps ahead of the courts below,” she wrote. “And in doing so, the Court sidesteps the ordinary judicial process to allow the Government to implement a rule that bypassed the ordinary rulemaking process.

“Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively.”

---
Hope the Supreme Joke's rubber stamp doesn't wear out. Why are they collecting a paycheck if they don't do their job: protect our laws and constitution from this dictator?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 01:04 PM

22. keeping his base happy

he promised he would do this. expect more of it as the next election looms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IcyPeas (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 14, 2019, 10:56 PM

23. Breyer and Kagan voted with the conservatives

Very odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread