U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce new asylum rules

Supreme Court upholds block on Trump’s asylum ban

Supreme Court upholds block on Trump’s asylum ban

Trump had issued a presidential proclamation on November 9 saying he was acting to protect the United States national interest against the thousands of Central American migrants walking towards the USA border with Mexico. The administration may eventually, as Trump predicted, win in the Supreme Court, but this round went to the challengers, and the eventual fate of the case nearly certainly lies in Roberts' hands. "And as much as we might be tempted to revise the law as we think wise, revision of the laws is left with the branch that enacted the laws in the first place - Congress".

Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, whose Wednesday ruling has kept the proposed ban in a state of limbo, ruled that Trump's ban was in conflict with immigration law.

The administration has sought ways to block thousands of Central American men, women and children traveling in caravans to escape violence and poverty in their home countries from entering the USA, with Mr Trump calling them a national security threat.

The port-of-entry restrictions, due to expire after 90 days, were made through a presidential proclamation Trump issued on November 9 alongside a new administration rule. That led Trump to criticize the San Francisco-based appeals court, which has blocked other administration policies such as the travel ban.

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges", Roberts said.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in the 5-4 ruling.

Roberts, Jr., did not vote along with the Court's other conservatives to grant the government request. "It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an 'independent judiciary, ' but if it is why". We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe!

President Trump signed an executive order last month that would have ended asylum applications for those who crossed the border illegally.

"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States", the relevant federal statute says, may apply for asylum - "whether or not at a designated port of arrival".

Francisco said that even if the justices decided not to lift the injunction they should scale back a nationwide injunction imposed by the lower court.

The government told the justices that if Tigar's order stays in place while the appeal moves through the federal courts, it will frustrate "a coordinated effort by the President, the Attorney General, and the Secretary to re-establish sovereign control over the southern border, reduce illegal and unsafe border crossings, and conduct sensitive and ongoing diplomatic negotiations". But rights groups have challenged his new rules, saying they violate administrative and immigration laws.

"The Supreme Court doesn't like to be rushed, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular doesn't like to be rushed", said Toobin.

Recommended News

We are pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news.
Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper.
Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.