On Wednesday, San Francisco-based Judge Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction halting President Trump’s ban on asylum seekers who pass through another country on their way to the U.S. The injunction halts the ban nationwide.
Tigar’s ruling came hours after a federal judge in the District of Columbia declined to stop the asylum ban in a similar litigation case.
Judge Tigar seems to be the go-to guy for the left’s judicial abuse of power with regard to asylum rulings. In November, he also blocked the President’s asylum policy connected with migrants coming into the country through a port of entry.
Attorney Robert Barnes tweeted: “More federal judges pretending they were elected to run asylum policy.”
More federal judges pretending they were elected to run asylum policy. https://t.co/8yWUoVrCKS
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) July 25, 2019
In his 45-page order, Tigar ruled that the new regulation “is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.” He stated that the decision to enact the measure was “arbitrary and capricious.” He wrote in his opinion that, while it purports to offer protections for migrants, the ban could potentially expose them to grave dangers as they’re forced to seek protection in Mexico or other nations before applying for asylum in the U.S.
The judge admitted in the courtroom that he expected a quick appeal to be filed on his ruling.
Last week, the administration issued a fast-track regulation requiring most migrants entering the U.S. through the southern border to first seek asylum in one of the countries they pass through on their way to America, whether it is Mexico or another Central American country.
Wednesday morning’s hearing in San Francisco, DOJ attorney Scott Stewart had defended the new interim rule as “lawful” and “appropriately issued.” The government told the court the rule is needed to “address the urgent, ongoing crisis” at the border.
When Stewart brought up U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly’s decision in Washington, D.C., hours earlier, Tigar said that ruling was not binding on his own decision. “My ruling is not binding on him just as his ruling is not binding on me.” He added that if there were conflicts in their decisions, a higher court could resolve them.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights challenged the policy in San Francisco, claiming it violates domestic and international law and the right of migrants to seek asylum in the U.S.
Democrats in control of the House of Representatives have blocked every attempt to regain control of the crisis at the border during the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Democrat-appointed judges time after time do their part to block executive-branch attempts to resolve the crisis.
Just one other example of that … on Monday, a three-judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled against the administration’s policy allowing for the indefinite detention of certain asylum-seekers. Tellingly, the initial court ruling in that case was a Clinton appointee, District Judge Marsh Pechman, and the three-judge panel consisted of Carter appointee Judges Mary Schroeder and William Canby, along with the Obama-appointed Judge Morgan Christen.
Liberals use the judiciary to legislate.
— Deplorable ? Debra (@debra0827) July 25, 2019
This CANNOT continue.
One. Freaking. Judge. Should NOT be able to block anything Presidential.
— Kim Henry (@khenry657) July 25, 2019
Trump not only exposed the biased media, he has also exposed the biased, activist judiciary. This will, of course, be overturned.
Appointing fair judges who don’t think they are President is Trump’s MOST important accomplishment.
— Bonnie O (@bloc52) July 25, 2019
Tired of CA ruling the rest of the US
— LMS (@lj4wvu) July 25, 2019
- NJ school teacher yells at students she hopes they die ‘painful death’ from coronavirus for playing at park - April 27, 2020
- Trump’s briefing-alternative included bold counteroffensive: ‘No respect for people running Fox News’ - April 27, 2020
- Candace Owens questions next moves in COVID19 strategy: ‘None of this makes any sense’ - April 26, 2020