Kevin Daley, DCNF
The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s bid to enforce new restrictions on asylum in a terse order Friday.
The vote was five to four. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal bloc to deny the government’s application, after a federal judge in California barred enforcement of the revised asylum rules.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh noted their dissent. As is typical of orders of this nature, there was no opinion.
President Donald Trump and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security issued the restrictions as migrant caravans coalesced near the U.S. border with Mexico. In effect, the rules provide that illegal aliens are ineligible for asylum protections.
Federal law provides that any foreign national who “arrives in the United States, whether or not at a designated port of arrival,” may apply for asylum. Congress adopted this rule pursuant to federal treaty obligations under the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
As such, critics charge that the new restrictions are directly contrary to federal statutes and international treaties to which the U.S. is party.
In response, the Justice Department argues the revisions were promulgated to improve the administration of immigration policies and address an unprecedented security situation at the southern border.
“These measures are designed to channel asylum seekers to ports of entry, where their claims can be processed in an orderly manner; deter unlawful and dangerous border crossings; and reduce the backlog of meritless asylum claims,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the justices in court filings.
U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar entered an injunction against those rules on Nov. 19. In response, Trump derided Tigar as an “Obama judge,” drawing a rare rebuke from the chief justice.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Tigar’s decision on Dec. 8, prompting the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
A coalition of former Republican politicians and Justice Department officials filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief urging the high court to reject the administration’s application.
Friday’s order was not a decision on the merits. Rather, the Trump administration was asking the justices to allow enforcement of its new rules while legal challenges proceed through the lower courts. However, the decision indicates that the government will likely lose if the high court is asked to rule directly on the asylum restrictions.
This is breaking news. This post will be updated as more information becomes available.
Send tips to [email protected]
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- ‘We cannot turn a blind eye’: Governor signs bill to end gender transitions at children’s hospital - October 5, 2022
- Enviros are demanding big tech treat ‘climate disinformation’ like hate speech - October 5, 2022
- Top oil industry groups hammer Biden admin’s plan to ban, limit fuel exports - October 5, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.