Supreme Court Gives Go-Ahead To Trump 'Public Charge' Immigration Curb

[riversedge]

Source: huff post




POLITICS 01/27/2020 01:37 pm ET
The policy has been criticized as a “wealth test” that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.


WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Monday for one of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance in the future.

The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted the administration’s request to lift a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the so-called public charge policy, which has been criticized by immigrant rights advocates as a “wealth test” that would disproportionately keep out non-white immigrants.







The court’s five conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, carried the day. The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the administration’s request to put the injunction on hold. The action was announced even as Roberts sat as the presiding officer in Trump’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate.

................
....................

The administration had asked the high court to let the rule go into effect even before the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Trump’s appeal of Daniels’ injunction against the rule. The 2nd Circuit is considering the matter on an expedited basis, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and arguments to be held soon afterward.

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-trump-public-charge-immigration_n_5e2f2c33c5b6d6767fd9fa0e

---

?cache=dlewnc8c8a&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale
President Donald Trump walks to a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyah

[Bayard]

1. It always comes down to money with these people

[Bayard]

22. Under pressure from who?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. So, they lifted another Stay

Is this highly unusual for them to allow so many policies to go into effect with legal cases pending? Or is this fairly common/typical?

[Mr.Bill]

3. Well, the upside is if the court is ruling

that a president can put this policy in place, then they are also ruling that the next president can take it out.

Most of what Trump has done has been not through the legislative process, but by executive order. It can all be reversed just as easily as it was implemented.

[machoneman]

5. Yes! Exactly! I've been crowing the same line: our next Democratic President can and must....

immediately reverse a ton of Trumpefueher's orders. See, he didn't and could never legislate by getting Congress to approve most of fiats. Now, they can be reversed Day 1 by our next duly elected Democratic President as w/o the passage of actual laws, his orders, mandates, etc. will be gone!

[in2herbs]

7. Thank you and thank you Mr. Bill for the clarification. The next D pres should reverse all

trump EOs on day one at the same time she releases all of the documents the Rs are withholding in the impeachment process.

[onenote]

11. In this case, the rule was not adopted by Executive Order but pursuant to a Notice and Comment r

rulemaking.

It almost certainly could not be undone by an executive order -- it would require a new rulemaking reaching a different outcome.

[in2herbs]

16. Thanks. nt

[safeinOhio]

4. What next?

No more Huddled Masses?

[BlueIdaho]

6. Another 5 - 4 vote...

The SC is politically biased - it’s time for term limits.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. How would the SC vote on the constitutionality of those term limits?

The vote would probably be bipartisan, 0-9 to disallow term limits.

[onenote]

10. What are the odds that the Constitution could be successfully amended to impose term limits?

Because it isn't something that could be done by legislation.

[cstanleytech]

9. Next Democratic president needs to sign an executive order that revokes every executive order and

rule change instituted by Trump.

[onenote]

12. An executive order revoking notice and comment rulemakings en masse

would almost certainly be invalidated as violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

[cstanleytech]

13. If Trump can ignore the rules why the hell not?

[Igel]

14. If you do a count,

you'll find that a lot of rules that he has proposed have been invalided under the APA.

The DACA recission, for example.

As for an earlier question about the sheer number of injunctions overturned, the question isn't the number but the percentages. Having district courts issue nation-wide injunctions happened a handful of times prior to 2017. Since then they've become frequent. When one number changes, you expect things dependent on that number to also change.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Equal protection clause

applies to non-citizens inside the US as well. Or at least it used to.

[LittleGirl]

17. I don't understand this

This rule is already in place. You must provide documentation about your financial worthiness when you apply for a green card.
Been there, done that. I don’t understand why this ruling was made. It’s Redundant.

[sl8]

18. The rule was changed last year.

From http://amylhowe.com/2020/01/27/government-gets-green-light-to-implement-public-charge-rule-pending-appeals/

[...]

The rule that the government will now be able to enforce interprets a provision of federal immigration law that bans noncitizens from receiving a green card if the government believes that they are likely to become a “public charge” – that is, reliant on government assistance. In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security defined “public charge” to refer to noncitizens who receive a variety of government benefits, including cash, health care or housing, for more than 12 months over a three-year period. The rule also considers factors such as age, employment history and finances to determine whether a noncitizen might become a public charge in the future.

A group of states and immigration groups went to court to challenge the rule, arguing that DHS’s interpretation of the law is not a reasonable one. The district court agreed with the challengers that they were likely to prevail and temporarily blocked the government from enforcing the rule, setting up the government’s request for the Supreme Court to intervene.

Last week the challengers filed briefs urging the justices to turn down the government’s request. They emphasized that the kind of relief that the government was seeking is normally intended to “preserve the status quo,” but allowing the government to enforce the rule would have exactly the opposite effect, because the rule is a “vast expansion” of what it means to be a public charge. Previously, they explained, the term “public charge” had applied only to “individuals who are primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence.” Moreover, they added, the government has not suggested that it needs to be able to enforce the rule for public safety or national security reasons.

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch focused primarily on the common practice, illustrated in this case, of district courts issuing what are known as “nationwide injunctions” – relief that goes beyond the parties to a particular dispute and bars the government from enforcing a law or regulation against anyone in the country. Nationwide injunctions, Gorsuch emphasized, “have little basis in traditional equitable practice” and “hardly seem an innovation we should rush to embrace,” because they “tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.” And so although Gorsuch agreed with the court’s decision to allow the government to implement the public charge rule while it appeals, he also expressed hope that the court “might at an appropriate juncture take up some of the underlying equitable and constitutional questions raised by the rise of nationwide injunctions.”

[...]

[LittleGirl]

20. Thank you I must have missed that last August

Appreciate it!

[sl8]

19. Link to order (PDF):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a785_j4ek.pdf