Law Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of Trump asylum rule

I am so damn happy that this occurred.

I'm sure Justice Roberts is now considering(or at least has it in the back of his mind) doing something about Activist Judges who have too much power over the Country.

Their power should only be relegated to their own districts. PERIOD.
 
Article :

Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions

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 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – long a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped into a more moderate court by the Trump administration – handed the White House a partial victory in the case on Monday by ending the nationwide injunction against the asylum policy. However, the 9th Circuit kept the injunction alive within the territorial boundaries of the circuit, which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington.

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.

"Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution," Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote.

They added that they were disappointed the majority failed to exercise "restraint," and instead intervened in the lower-court matter before it was fully resolved.

The White House, however, said the lower court had overreached in an all-too-familiar manner.

“We are pleased the Supreme Court has ruled our Administration can implement important, needed fixes to the broken asylum system," White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said.

"This greatly helps build on the progress we’ve made addressing the crisis at our southern border and will ultimately make American communities safer," Gidley added. "The district court’s erroneous nationwide injunction was another in a series of overreaching orders that allowed a single, non-elected district court judge to override policy decisions for the entire Nation. While there is much more work still to be done, thankfully the Supreme Court took a decisive step here and rejected the lower court’s egregious ruling.”

The DOJ also said the ruling would "bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims."

In a joint statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship Chair Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said they were "gravely disappointed."

“Lives will be lost," Nadler and Lofgren said. "This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the [Central American] region. The United States can and must do better.”




>>> First off, take that you piece of shit "Tigar"!! "Injunct" THIS : <JonesDXSuckIt>

Now again, I am pleased with this but I also must ask what Sotomayor and Ginsberg are smoking with their persecution nonsense?

And Nadler says the United States can and must do better?

I have a solution : DEPORT YOUR ASS TO VENEZUELA!

That would immediately have the United States "do better". <{natewhut}>
 
You seem uniquely interested in commenting on legal matters. Hit me with some of your “analysis of court decisions.” I would love to know what a legal scholar like you thinks about this single paragraph order. Please, do a deep dive.

It’s just funny that you’re here accusing others of “just reading the headlines,” but you called it a “reversal of a preliminary injunction.” I thought we were talking about a stay of nationwide enforcement of the preliminary injunction, and not a reversal.

Lower Court:
Plaintiff sought an injunction on Trump's new asylum rules; Injunction granted

9th Circuit:
Trump Admin appealed lower court ruling, seeking a STAY on the injunction of the lower court; Stay partially granted

SCOTUS:
Reversed the ruling of the 9th circuit; There is no stay, trump admin can enforce new asylum rules
 
Lower Court:
Plaintiff sought an injunction on Trump's new asylum rules; Injunction granted

9th Circuit:
Trump Admin appealed lower court ruling, seeking a STAY on the injunction of the lower court; Stay partially granted

SCOTUS:
Reversed the ruling of the 9th circuit; There is no stay, trump admin can enforce new asylum rules

Wrong.



The appeal is still pending. The injunction is stayed pending appeal and cert petition. The government applied directly to the SCOTUS. No rulings have been reversed.
 
I actually have no real opinion on their decision. I was merely commenting that things had changed from the original post.

If I were to make a comment regarding the decision it would be that I'm fine with the current outcome. Regardless of the issue at hand I don't believe it's the place of a single judge at his level to makes judgements that effect the entire country or its policies.


Well, it's not a judgment. He only granted an injunction. He didn't declare the policies unconstitutional or unlawful. The Plaintiff's in the lower Court asked for the injunction. The standard for granting an injunction is simply "irreparable harm". A federal judge certainly has the power to grant injunctions(even nationwide). Read the ruling from the lower court, there is plenty of precedent supporting a nationwide injunction and the judge's authority to do as such.

Trump is always going to get his immigration policies held up by injunctions. The policies on their face imply "irreparable harm", so most judges are always going to grant injunctions.
 
Wrong.



The appeal is still pending. The injunction is stayed pending appeal and cert petition. The government applied directly to the SCOTUS. No rulings have been reversed.


If no ruling had been reversed then the situation would still the same as it was after the 9th Circuit's ruling.Post-SCOTUS ruling, the asylum rules can be applied nationwide.

9th Circuit's order allowed an injunction to be applied only within the 9th Circuit.
SCOTUS ruled that the asylum rules can be applied nationwide.

Let me dumb it down for you:

If I give you an Apple, and then decide that I want the apple back and take it, my decision to give you the apple has been reversed.
 
Kind of fucked that people want to strip the judicial branch of its powers over this. Tread carefully, children...
 
Kind of fucked that people want to strip the judicial branch of its powers over this. Tread carefully, children...

The lower-circuit judge powers should only consist of their OWN DISTRICTS, NOT The Entire Country!!!

Otherwise, why have the Supreme Court at all?


Don't know why you think that is considered stripping the judicial branch of its powers....
 
Article :

Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions

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 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – long a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped into a more moderate court by the Trump administration – handed the White House a partial victory in the case on Monday by ending the nationwide injunction against the asylum policy. However, the 9th Circuit kept the injunction alive within the territorial boundaries of the circuit, which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington.

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.

"Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution," Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote.

They added that they were disappointed the majority failed to exercise "restraint," and instead intervened in the lower-court matter before it was fully resolved.

The White House, however, said the lower court had overreached in an all-too-familiar manner.

“We are pleased the Supreme Court has ruled our Administration can implement important, needed fixes to the broken asylum system," White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said.

"This greatly helps build on the progress we’ve made addressing the crisis at our southern border and will ultimately make American communities safer," Gidley added. "The district court’s erroneous nationwide injunction was another in a series of overreaching orders that allowed a single, non-elected district court judge to override policy decisions for the entire Nation. While there is much more work still to be done, thankfully the Supreme Court took a decisive step here and rejected the lower court’s egregious ruling.”

The DOJ also said the ruling would "bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims."

In a joint statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship Chair Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said they were "gravely disappointed."

“Lives will be lost," Nadler and Lofgren said. "This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the [Central American] region. The United States can and must do better.”




>>> First off, take that you piece of shit "Tigar"!! "Injunct" THIS : <JonesDXSuckIt>

Now again, I am pleased with this but I also must ask what Sotomayor and Ginsberg are smoking with their persecution nonsense?

And Nadler says the United States can and must do better?

I have a solution : DEPORT YOUR ASS TO VENEZUELA!

That would immediately have the United States "do better". <{natewhut}>

Wow 7-2 vote! It almost seems like a couple of justices are ignoring the law in favor of party ideology.

Perhaps someone should send them a letter threatening to reshape the court.
 
If no ruling had been reversed then the situation would still the same as it was after the 9th Circuit's ruling.Post-SCOTUS ruling, the asylum rules can be applied nationwide.

9th Circuit's order allowed an injunction to be applied only within the 9th Circuit.
SCOTUS ruled that the asylum rules can be applied nationwide.

Let me dumb it down for you:

If I give you an Apple, and then decide that I want the apple back and take it, my decision to give you the apple has been reversed.

Wow you’re really swinging in the dark there, champ. First of all, a stay and a reversal are different things. A stay of execution does not reverse a court’s order; it simply prevents it from being enforced temporarily. The SCOTUS here expressly stated that the stay terminates once the Court decides the case or denies certioriari. By contrast, a reversal is a formal case disposition on appeal after the Court reaches the merits of the legal issue raised in a lower court. As I informed you previously, the government applied for the stay to the SCOTUS directly. The appeal hasn’t been decided yet. There is nothing to “reverse” or “affirm” yet.

The Court’s order is clear. It prevents the injunction from being enforced nationwide for the time being. It made no rulings with respect to any of the asylum rules at issue. It made no rulings on the merits of the injunction, or on its scope within the ninth circuit. It is one paragraph long, so you have no excuse for misreading it this badly.
 
Wow you’re really swinging in the dark there, champ. First of all, a stay and a reversal are different things. A stay of execution does not reverse a court’s order; it simply prevents it from being enforced temporarily. The SCOTUS here expressly stated that the stay terminates once the Court decides the case or denies certioriari. By contrast, a reversal is a formal case disposition on appeal after the Court reaches the merits of the legal issue raised in a lower court. As I informed you previously, the government applied for the stay to the SCOTUS directly. The appeal hasn’t been decided yet. There is nothing to “reverse” or “affirm” yet.

The Court’s order is clear. It prevents the injunction from being enforced nationwide for the time being. It made no rulings with respect to any of the asylum rules at issue. It made no rulings on the merits of the injunction, or on its scope within the ninth circuit. It is one paragraph long, so you have no excuse for misreading it this badly.

So desperate to be correct that you are arguing semantics. The practical effect of SCOTUS order is that the 9th circuit's decision to allow partial enforcement of the asylum band has been reversed.

If you insist on believing that you are some legal expert and are always right -- keep in mind you are the same person who didn't even know what an injunction, or stay was yesterday. There isn't much point in continuing this. Pointless to argue with an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Kind of fucked that people want to strip the judicial branch of its powers over this. Tread carefully, children...

Don’t worry. The judicial branch is the only branch that gets to define the limits of its power.

The lower-circuit judge powers should only consist of their OWN DISTRICTS, NOT The Entire Country!!!

Otherwise, why have the Supreme Court at all?

Don't know why you think that is considered stripping the judicial branch of its powers....

I believe Justice Thomas recently wrote in a concurrence of his willingness to confront this issue. That’s one of the ways in which the court signals (or “dog whistles”) its interest in a particular issue. Nationwide injunctions are huge problem, and they encourage forum shopping. In most cases these days, plaintiff go shopping for the Ninth Circuit.
 
So desperate to be correct that you are arguing semantics. The practical effect of SCOTUS order is that the 9th circuit's decision to allow partial enforcement of the asylum band has been reversed.

If you insist on believing that you are some legal expert and are always right -- keep in mind you are the same person who didn't even know what an injunction, or stay was yesterday. There isn't much point in continuing this.

You: The SCOTUS “reversed” the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. “There is no stay.”

SCOTUS: “The application for stay... is granted.”

You: Nope, it’s a reversal, and “you are arguing semantics.”
 
You: The SCOTUS “reversed” the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. “There is no stay.”

SCOTUS: “The application for stay... is granted.”

You: Nope, it’s a reversal, and “you are arguing semantics.”

You are confused(again). Actually read the documents instead of just posting links.

I was referring to the 9th Circuit's order and partial stay; SCOTUS order allows full enforcement of the asylum rules. Hence the 9th circuit's partial stay is moot. To clarify, SCOTUS' order makes the 9th circuit's order moot since the enforcement is nationwide(including the 9th circuit). I should have explained it better, I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

Let me dumb it down to your level. We have an empty basket. The 9th circuit puts an apple(the partial stay) into the basket. SCOTUS comes along allowing full enforcement of the asylum rules, but they need 1 apple to do it, so they take the apple from your basket. There are no Apples in the basket anymore. Now do you understand kiddo?

But hey man, since you are such a legal expert you shouldn't waste your time arguing with me. I'm sure the DOJ is looking for bright legal minds(with no actual legal experience other than google) such as yourself.
 
You are confused(again). Actually read the documents instead of just posting links.

I was referring to the 9th Circuit's order and partial stay; SCOTUS order allows full enforcement of the asylum rules. Hence the 9th circuit's partial stay is moot. To clarify, SCOTUS' order makes the 9th circuit's order moot since the enforcement is nationwide(including the 9th circuit). I should have explained it better, I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

Let me dumb it down to your level. We have an empty basket. The 9th circuit puts an apple(the partial stay) into the basket. SCOTUS comes along allowing full enforcement of the asylum rules, but they need 1 apple to do it, so they take the apple from your basket. There are no Apples in the basket anymore. Now do you understand kiddo?

But hey man, since you are such a legal expert you shouldn't waste your time arguing with me. I'm sure the DOJ is looking for bright legal minds(with no actual legal experience other than google) such as yourself.

You have not one clue what you’re talking about.
 
You have not one clue what you’re talking about.


Since you are so smart,you shouldn't be wasting your time arguing with me. The DOJ needs (unlicensed) attorneys like you. Tell them all about your vast legal experience and how you just learned what an injunction is yesterday. Tell them all about the (non-existent) cases you have won. Im sure they will call you back.
https://www.justice.gov/careers/search-jobs
 
Since you are so smart,you shouldn't be wasting your time arguing with me. The DOJ needs (unlicensed) attorneys like you. Tell them all about your vast legal experience and how you just learned what an injunction is yesterday. Tell them all about the (non-existent) cases you have won. Im sure they will call you back.
https://www.justice.gov/careers/search-jobs

You're right. He shouldn't waste his time arguing with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Go find another thread to complain in. You lost this argument to him.

BYE! <Arya01>
 
Back
Top