60.57 F
New York
September 18, 2019
Home » Blog » Supreme Court Backs New Trump Asylum Restrictions
New York Times - Politics

Supreme Court Backs New Trump Asylum Restrictions

Supreme Court Backs New Trump Asylum Restrictions
Spread the Love!!

Judge Tigar said his ruling applied across the nation. Such nationwide injunctions have been the subject of much criticism, but the Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling on whether and when they are proper.

When Judge Tigar blocked a different aspect of the administration’s asylum policies in November, Mr. Trump criticized the ruling, saying it had been issued by an “Obama judge.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare rebuke to Mr. Trump.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” the chief justice said, adding that an “independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

When Judge Tigar’s earlier ruling reached the Supreme Court in December, the court refused to issue a stay by a 5-to-4 vote. Chief Justice Roberts joined the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.

In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, narrowed the geographic scope of Judge Tigar’s more recent ruling while it considered the administration’s appeal, saying it should apply only in the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, which includes two border states, California and Arizona. (Two other border states, Texas and New Mexico, are in the jurisdictions of other federal appeals courts.)

On Monday, however, Judge Tigar again imposed a nationwide injunction, saying he had been presented with additional evidence justifying one. “Anything but a nationwide injunction,” he wrote, “will create major administrability issues.” On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked the new injunction and ordered the two sides to submit briefs on whether it should issue a stay.

In an emergency application to the Supreme Court last month seeking a stay of Judge Tigar’s initial ruling while the case moved forward, Mr. Francisco argued that the administration was entitled to skip ordinary notice and comment requirements for new regulations because foreign affairs were at issue and because a delay after the announcement of the procedures “may prompt an additional surge of asylum seekers.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-asylum.html?emc=rss&partner=rss

Related Articles

Trump’s Methane Rule Rollback Divides Oil and Gas Industry

New York Times

U.S. Cyberattack Hurt Iran’s Ability to Target Oil Tankers, Officials Say

New York Times

Mnuchin Dismisses Data Showing Trade War Pain

New York Times

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Click whichever is suitable. Accept Read More