Thread: BREAKING:Supreme Court rejects Trump plea to enforce asylum ban

Supreme Court rejects Trump plea to enforce asylum ban



By The Associated Press


Posted: Fri 3:04 PM, Dec 21, 2018 |
Updated: Fri 3:04 PM, Dec 21, 2018




WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't let the Trump administration begin enforcing a ban on asylum for any immigrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

New Justice Brett Kavanaugh and three other conservative justices sided with the administration.

The court's order Friday leaves in place lower court rulings that blocked President Donald Trump's proclamation in November automatically denying asylum to people who enter the country from Mexico without going through official border crossings.

Trump said he was acting in response to caravans of migrants making their way to the border.

The administration had also complained that the nationwide order preventing the policy from taking effect was too broad.

But Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four more liberal justices rejected the administration's suggestion for narrowing it.

https://www.graydc.com/content/misc/503341511.html

Supreme Court rejects Trump plea to enforce asylum ban


December 21, 2018

Mark Sherman

• 

Photo: J. David Ake, AP


In this Oct. 5, 2018 photo the U. S. Supreme Court building stands quietly before dawn in Washington. The Supreme Court won’t let the Trump administration begin enforcing a ban on asylum for any immigrants ... more



WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court won't let the Trump administration begin enforcing a ban on asylum for any immigrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border.


Chief Justice John Roberts joined his four more liberal colleagues Friday in ruling against the administration in the very case in which President Donald Trump had derided the "Obama judge" who first blocked the asylum policy.


New Justice Brett Kavanaugh and three other conservative justices sided with the administration.

There were no opinions explaining either side's votes.

The court's order leaves in place lower court rulings that blocked Trump's proclamation in November automatically denying asylum to people who enter the country from Mexico without going through official border crossings.

Trump said he was acting in response to caravans of migrants making their way to the border.

The administration had also complained that the nationwide order preventing the policy from taking effect was too broad. But the court also rejected the administration's suggestion for narrowing it.

Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union leading the court challenge, said the high court's decision "will save lives and keep vulnerable families and children from persecution. We are pleased the court refused to allow the administration to short-circuit the usual appellate process."


The high court action followed a ruling Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar that kept the ban on hold pending the outcome of a lawsuit challenging it. The case could take months to resolve.

The ban conflicts with an immigration law that says immigrants can apply for asylum regardless of how they enter the U.S., Tigar said.
In the first court ruling on the issue, Tigar said on Nov. 19 that U.S. law allows immigrants to request asylum regardless of whether they entered the country legally.

The ruling prompted Trump's criticism of Tigar as an "Obama judge" and led to an unusual public dispute between Trump and Roberts, who rebuked the president with a statement defending the judiciary's independence.

Tigar was nominated for the federal bench by President Barack Obama.



https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...rce-asylum-ban

Supreme Court rejects Trump asylum ban on illegal migrants




December 21, 2018


The US Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration's policy to deny asylum to any migrants crossing the US-Mexico border illegally.


The top court rejected the policy 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's liberals.


Federal judges had previously stayed the asylum ban, ruling it tried to circumvent existing laws granting anyone the right to asylum in the US.
The government had described the policy as a way to address the border crisis.


Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.


The court offered no opinion, just a document noting the order upholding the lower courts' ruling against the ban.

• The agony over an American dream
• US migrant caravan: Trump's asylum ban

What was the asylum ban?


On 9 November, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation stating that only asylum claims made at official ports of entry would be heard.

Lower federal courts blocked the policy from going into effect soon after.

In Solicitor General Noel Francisco's request to the Supreme Court to give the proclamation the go-ahead, he claimed the president's decree was for border security and to discourage dangerous crossings.

The petition claimed that migrants entered the US illegally and then claimed asylum, allowing them to remain in the country while their cases were being processed - even if those cases were unlikely to be granted.


"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."


The government added that the temporary ban would "assist the president in sensitive and ongoing diplomatic negotiations" with Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and



The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which issued the legal challenge to the ban, said the policy was unjustifiable and unfair.
The ACLU noted that many legitimate asylum seekers, fearing for their lives, enter illegally "through no fault of their own".



"The government's statutory arguments boil down to the contention that it would be more 'rational' and 'sensible' to deny asylum to people who enter illegally. But Congress expressly rejected that argument," ACLU court documents stated .



The ACLU concluded that the administration was addressing "the wrong branch of government" with its request.


"It should make its case to Congress rather than seeking emergency intervention from this court regarding an almost 40-year-old statute."


What did the lower courts say?


Though the administration's ban was described as temporary, the lower courts ruled that it was not up to the White House to change existing federal laws in this way.


Under US law, there is a legal obligation to hear asylum claims from migrants if they say they fear violence in their home countries - regardless of how they have entered the country.


US District Judge Jon Tigar in California had first blocked Mr Trump's proclamation in November, and extended his order this month.
A panel of appeals court judges upheld that injunction.


Conservative Judge Jay Bybee wrote in the appeals opinion: "Just as we may not, as we are often reminded, 'legislate from the bench,' neither may the Executive legislate from the Oval Office", the Washington Post reported .




Trump and the facts about the migrant caravanWhat is the situation at the border?

The latest group of migrants seeking entry into the US come from across Central America. They travelled north for weeks in what Mr Trump described as a "caravan of people".


They say they are fleeing persecution, poverty and violence in their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
In the run-up to the US mid-term elections, President Trump said most were criminals, called the caravan an invasion, and ordered troops to the border.


On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security announced that any migrants who illegally enter the US - including asylum seekers - will have to wait in Mexico for their cases to be heard.


The Mexican government has said it will offer migrants work visas and protections while they await asylum proceedings, according to the US Department of State.


https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-46652863

Supreme Court keeps asylum limits on hold


December 21, 2018

Lyle Denniston


Over the dissents of four Justices, the Supreme Court refused on Friday to allow the Trump Administration to put back into effect its new restrictions on asylum for foreign nationals entering the U.S. illegally across the Mexico border. The plea needed five votes to support the resumption of the policy but fell one short.




The ruling, though temporary in nature, was nevertheless a significant setback for the Trump Administration as it continues to adopt more stringent controls to deal with illegal entries into the United States from Latin American countries.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., did not vote along with the Court’s other conservatives to grant the government request. The Administration had the support of Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas. This marked the first time that Kavanaugh, new to the Court this term, has cast a vote in favor of a controversial policy of the Trump Administration.



The Court issued only a simple order, without explanation for any of the votes, that kept intact a California’s federal judge’s temporary but nationwide ban on enforcing the asylum limitations. The issue could return to the Justices after lower courts rule more definitively on the challenge being pursued to the new restrictions by four organizations that handle legal claims for those seeking asylum.



Under the Administration policy, the government declared that it would not allow any foreign national to seek asylum if that individual had entered the U.S. illegally and crossed the U.S.-Mexico border at any point other than an official reception point – called a “port of entry.”



The nationwide order against enforcement of that policy was based on a temporary filing that the challengers probably will be able to prove, when the issue is fully tested in court, that the policy violates the federal law governing foreign nationals’ access to asylum – the kind of relief that enables a person fleeing from persecution and torture in their home country to gain a chance to live in the U.S. as a refugee.



The Administration had asked the Supreme Court to set aside the nationwide order against that policy, arguing that the restriction was necessary to deal with “an ongoing crisis” that was said to be the result of a wave of new illegal entries along the southern border. The government lawyers had argued to the Court that it was well within federal powers to impose even a flat ban on who can gain asylum, and this policy was not even a flat ban but only a temporary restriction during the peak of the crisis.



With the denial of any relief by the Supreme Court from the federal judge’s order, the policy – set to be in effect for 90 days – probably will not be in effect at any point in that period, unless lower courts were to rule quickly on an Administration appeal formally contesting the nationwide order.



The judge’s order against the asylum policy was one of two recent setbacks in federal court for the Trump Administration as it sought to deal with legal issues over asylum as part of its efforts to impose new controls on entry across the U.S.-Mexico border. Another federal judge has temporarily barred a separate government policy that denied asylum eligibility to foreign nationals who were seeking protection after fleeing from domestic violence in their home countries.



https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court...-politics.html

They do NOT qualify and have no proof.

Overbreeding in poverty looking for a "better life" is not asylum.

Get a panel of Judges down there. Send them through...DENY the case and send them back!

Pregnant ones and minor's go to the head of the line. Fast track them and their UAC's off our soil.

WE ARE NOT THE ATM MACHING OR DUMPING GROUND FOR THE WORLD.

I guess payback can be hell! Trump's tweeter has gotten him into trouble before. His tweets can have consequences.

Guess Roberts didn't take kindly to Trump publicly admonishing him.

Trump blasts Roberts, says judges are ‘making our country unsafe’

Originally Posted by MW

I guess payback can be hell! Trump's tweeter has gotten him into trouble before. His tweets can have consequences.

Guess Roberts didn't take kindly to Trump publicly admonishing him.

Trump blasts Roberts, says judges are ‘making our country unsafe’

If you believe that, then Roberts vote proved Trump's Tweet 100% right, and Roberts 100% wrong, twice.

Originally Posted by Judy

If you believe that, then Roberts vote proved Trump's Tweet 100% right, and Roberts 100% wrong, twice.

I don't know what to believe. However, it's not beyond reason to believe Chief Justice Roberts took Trump's tweeter attack personally.

If Roberts did take it personally and voted against Trump in that ruling because of it, Roberts needs to resign immediately. We can't have an emotionally conflicted Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, such a situation is completely unacceptable and puts our nation in grave danger. So, Roberts needs to go if there's any truth at all to what you claim.