Roberts, liberal justices snub Trump bid to enforce asylum policy

By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: Immigrants from Central America and Mexican citizens, who are fleeing from violence and poverty, queue to cross into the U.S. to apply for asylum at the new border crossing of El Chaparral in Tijuana, Mexico, November 24, 2016. REUTERS/Jorge Duenes/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Friday dealt a setback to President Donald Trump by refusing to allow his administration to implement new rules prohibiting asylum for people who cross the U.S. border illegally, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberal justices in denying the request.

 

The justices on a 5-4 vote rebuffed the administration's bid to put on hold a California-based federal judge's order preventing it from carrying out the policy making anyone crossing the U.S.-Mexican border outside of an official port of entry ineligible for asylum.

 

The planned asylum change was a key component of Trump's hardline policies aimed at making it tougher for immigrants to enter and stay in the United States.

 

Roberts, who last month rebuked Trump over his criticism of the judiciary, joined liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor against the administration. Trump's two high court appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, joined the two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, in dissent.

 

"The Supreme Court's decision to leave the asylum ban blocked 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," said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged Trump's policy.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar blocked the policy on Nov. 19. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then refused the administration's request to lift Tigar's order.

 

Tigar's ruling prompted Trump to call the jurist an "Obama judge" and blast the 9th Circuit in general as a "disgrace." Tigar was appointed to the bench by Democratic former President Barack Obama.

 

Trump's comments led to an extraordinary response from the normally reticent Roberts, who defended the independence of the federal judiciary and wrote in a public response to Trump on Nov. 21, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said.

 

The port-of-entry restrictions, due to expire after 90 days, were made through a presidential proclamation Trump issued on Nov. 9 alongside a new administration rule. The administration has sought ways to block thousands of Central American men, women and children travelling in caravans to escape violence and poverty in their home countries from entering the United States, with Trump calling the people in the caravans a national security threat.

 

Illegal crossings at the southern border have dropped dramatically since the late 1970s, but in recent years, applications for asylum have ballooned and more Central American families and unaccompanied children are migrating to the United States.  

 

Trump's proclamation stated that mass migration on the border had precipitated a crisis and he was acting to protect the U.S. national interest. Trump's policy was crafted to alter American asylum laws that have given people fleeing persecution and violence in their homelands the ability to seek sanctuary in the United States.

 

The Supreme Court in June backed Trump in another major immigration-related case when the justices in a 5-4 ruling endorsed the legality of the Republican president's travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations. Roberts joined the court's other conservatives in that ruling.

 

On Wednesday, a different judge blocked another of Trump's asylum-related orders, this one aimed at restricting asylum claims by people citing gang or domestic violence in their home countries.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-22

55 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberal justices in denying the request.

The Supreme Courts both in Thailand and the states are interesting to observe. Once when I was moonlighting at Ramkhamhaeng University, my evening class had several policemen and judges as students. One of the judges said she was on the Supreme Court and initially I was in awe and in disbelief.  One of the 12 court justices was actually in my classroom. Wow! I was so wrong. Come to find out, Thailand has a lot of judges. Even her husband was one.

 

The head judge in America is about six months older than me and grew up in a much different surrounding than I did. Basically, he was a rich kid who went to private schools and then Harvard. I doubt if he was around illegal immigrants much when he was growing up.

 

One of my old Army buddies has been married to the same Mexican lady for years. He raised a family in Texas and said the illegal immigrants made it hard on his kids when they were growing up. Simply, because part-time jobs for teenagers were hard to find. To many people willingly to work for a lot less. 

 

I should add that neither the student judge nor Roberts have ever asked me for any advice. Actually, no one does...

Good Donald dident get away with trying to subvert the law

37 minutes ago, Tug said:

Good Donald dident get away with trying to subvert the law

Well, obviously the law needs to be changed before the US is overridden with more caravans of illegal aliens bent on living off the American taxpayers. 

18 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Well, obviously the law needs to be changed before the US is overridden with more caravans of illegal aliens bent on living off the American taxpayers. 

Too bad 45 didn't get his own party to pass some legislation during his 2 yr super majority... 5555 winning!!

 

3 hours ago, missoura said:

The Supreme Courts both in Thailand and the states are interesting to observe. Once when I was moonlighting at Ramkhamhaeng University, my evening class had several policemen and judges as students. One of the judges said she was on the Supreme Court and initially I was in awe and in disbelief.  One of the 12 court justices was actually in my classroom. Wow! I was so wrong. Come to find out, Thailand has a lot of judges. Even her husband was one.

 

The head judge in America is about six months older than me and grew up in a much different surrounding than I did. Basically, he was a rich kid who went to private schools and then Harvard. I doubt if he was around illegal immigrants much when he was growing up.

 

One of my old Army buddies has been married to the same Mexican lady for years. He raised a family in Texas and said the illegal immigrants made it hard on his kids when they were growing up. Simply, because part-time jobs for teenagers were hard to find. To many people willingly to work for a lot less. 

 

I should add that neither the student judge nor Roberts have ever asked me for any advice. Actually, no one does...

Why is it only Roberts' biography that is relevant? Have you looked at the upbringing of  judges Kavanagh and Gorsuch who sided with Trump? Very privileged. background is quite the opposite?

And Sotomayor who sided against Trump? Her background is quite the opposite. 

The sole issue before the Supreme Court, as I understand, was whether the lower Court's order blocking implementation of the Asylum Ban should be allowed to stand pending the completion of the Appellate Process. Justice Thomas voted to overturn the order since he already is on record as to his distaste for "nationwide" injunctions. 

 

The order provides no insight as to how the Justices will rule as to the validity of the Asylum Ban if Certiorari is granted. 

SC didn't "snub" Trump. This is not a junior high school dance. They made decision based on their interpretation of Constitution. That's their job. Trump might want someone to read it to him and ask follow up questions to test for comprehension.

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Roberts, who last month rebuked Trump over his criticism of the judiciary, joined liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor against the administration.

Kind of lost is that Ginsburg's vote wasn't needed.

A 4-4 vote sustains the Appeal's decision that went against Trump.

Bye Bye Trump - 2019 is going to be an interesting year for you!!

This appears to be a sound and level headed decision on the part of Roberts. Nice to see the highest court in the land, refusing to engage in Trump style partisan politics. With Trump's crushing defeat in the House, 2019 is going to be a very difficult year for Trump. His days of utter domination are over. I full well expect him to become even more sour than usual. 

It's a good ruling, but the Reuters article here does a poor job in not distinguishing that the court's ruling was made more on procedural grounds (allowing the case to proceed thru the lower courts as normal) vs. making a SC judgment on the merits of the legal issues involved.

 

Roberts' vote here MIGHT be an indicator of how he's inclined to rule on the merits of the case, if it ends up reaching the SC in the future. But it might also be just a vote to allow the normal federal appeals process to play out without exceptional intervention by the high court.