From the "Restoring rule of law, one case at a time", files: Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions
SCOTUS delivers big Trump win and implicit rebuke to San Francisco federal judge's 50-state injunction on asylum rules change
In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday ending all injunctions that had blocked the White House's ban on asylum for anyone trying to enter the U.S. by traveling through a third country, such as Mexico, without seeking protection there.
...
The Supreme Court's order was not a final ruling on the policy's merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts.
President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it “would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.”
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
...
The Supreme Court's order was not a final ruling on the policy's merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way through the lower courts.
President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" The administration had argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that unless the injunctions were totally lifted everywhere, it “would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.”
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
SCOTUS delivers big Trump win and implicit rebuke to San Francisco federal judge's 50-state injunction on asylum rules change
There is reason for optimism that the Supreme Court will finally end the recent practice of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions preventing implementation of Trump administration policies while court challenges are underway. It makes no sense that a single judge in a deep blue jurisdiction can act to suspend a Trump policy that he doesn't agree with when the appellate courts above district courts can enforce their judgments only within the territory of their jurisdictions, not nationally.
The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices — Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level.
The speed with which the court acted, and the fact that only two justices — Sotomayor and Ginsburg — dissented from the order may indicate that the entire court is ready to slap down the national pretensions of its inferior courts at the district level.