US Supreme Court refuses Trump bid to restore asylum ban
- Author: Rogelio Becker Dec 24, 2018,
Dec 24, 2018, 0:59
In late October, the Pentagon deployed 5,200 troops to reinforce the border with Mexico from "migrant caravans" originating in Central American.
For apparently the first time, new Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a dissenting vote.
"The Supreme Court doesn't like to be rushed, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular doesn't like to be rushed", said Toobin.
That ruling prompted Trump to disparage Tigar as an "Obama judge".
He said that contrary to the holding of the lower court, immigration law allows the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to exercise their discretion to deny asylum to a migrant who has entered the nation illegally.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the Supreme Court that the policy had important goals - "channeling asylum seekers to ports of entry for orderly processing, discouraging risky and illegal entries between ports of entry, reducing the backlog of meritless asylum claims, and facilitating diplomatic negotiations".
The immigration system, the statement stressed, "is being overwhelmed by migration" through the U.S. -Mexico border: Immigrants who enter the United States illegally and try to claim asylum are often allowed to stay in the United States while their cases are being considered, making it very hard to deport them later.
The court was closely divided, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four-member liberal wing in turning down the administration's request for a stay of a trial judge's order blocking the program.
When a lower court ruled last month that Trump's ban was illegal, Trump attacked the judge as an "Obama judge". The statute says an asylum application must be accepted from any alien "physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States whether or not at a designated port of arrival. irrespective of such alien's status".
The current legal challenge originated in California, where the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also recently ruled against the administration and said the policy was likely "inconsistent" with existing law.
The administration argued that those who cross into the country illegally could still apply for asylum but that their illegal passage would be a reason to deny it.
Trump had criticized San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who on November 19 blocked the policy.
"We are pleased the court refused to allow the administration to short-circuit the usual appellate process", Gelernt said. Today the justices turned down the government's request, which means that the government will not be able to enforce its new policy on asylum while the government appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and, if it comes to that, the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department expressed disappointment with the decision, saying the 25 nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policies were "unprecedented".