Big Trump Admin Win: Supreme Court Slaps Down Rogue Federal Judge, Blocks Nationwide Injunction on completely new Asylum Rules
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a big win on controlling mass illegal immigration using a ruling temporarily blocking enforcement of a nationwide injunction issued by rogue federal Judge Jon Tigar against completely new Trump administration rules on applicants for the much abused asylum process.
Migrant caravan headed to US earlier that will year.
The case has been a battle between the administration along with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on one side along with Judge Tigar along with immigration activists on the additional. Tigar renewed a nationwide injunction that will week after being stopped by the 9th Circuit, which again blocked Tigar’s nationwide injunction, narrowing the item to just the 9th Circuit, before the Supreme Court stepped in along with slapped Tigar down completely.
Excerpt by National Review on the case:
…The Ninth Circuit granted the administration’s request for a stay late Tuesday night, just one day after San Francisco-based U.S. District Court judge Jon Tigar issued for the second time a nationwide injunction blocking the administration by implementing its completely new asylum policy. The court’s ruling narrows the scope of the injunction in order that will the administration will be only blocked by implementing its safe-third-country policy within the court’s jurisdiction, which includes California along with Arizona.
Under the completely new asylum policy, which was announced in July, migrants who travel through a safe third country such as Mexico on their way to the U.S. will be denied asylum if they haven’t previously applied for refugee status inside the country that will country. The policy will be today in effect in completely new Mexico along with Texas, since those states fall outside of the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
Soon after the policy was announced, Tigar, an Obama appointee, issued a nationwide injunction blocking its implementation, nevertheless was rebuffed by the Ninth Circuit, which narrowed the scope of the injunction. Citing completely new evidence about the policy’s alleged harm to migrants, Tigar reissued the nationwide injunction Monday, only to be overruled Yet again…
Excerpt by NBC News on the administration’s position:
…The administration said the completely new restriction will be needed to respond to “an unprecedented surge” of people who enter the country illegally along with seek asylum if they’re caught. nevertheless officials said only a tiny fraction of them are eventually found to be qualified. “The rule thus screens out asylum seekers who declined to request protection at their first opportunity,” said Solicitor General Noel Francisco. He said the item allows immigration officials to concentrate on the asylum seekers who most need protection.
Immigration courts today face a backlog of 436,000 asylum requests. nevertheless given how few are actually granted, the item’s reasonable to ask whether those applicants “genuinely fear persecution or torture, or are simply economic migrants,” Francisco said.
Text of the court ruling using a blistering dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 1
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v.
EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[September 11, 2019]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN along with by her referred to the Court will be granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction along with September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal inside the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit along with disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ will be sought. If a writ of certiorari will be sought along with the Court denies the petition, that will order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, that will order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting by grant of stay.
Yet again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that will seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees
who seek shelter by persecution. Although that will Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—along with although the
stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice along with inviting the public input generally required by law. After several organizations representing immigrants sued to stop the rule by going into effect, a federal district court found that will the organizations were likely to prevail along with preliminarily enjoined the rule nationwide. A federal appeals court narrowed the injunction to run only circuit-wide, nevertheless denied the Government’s motion for a complete stay.
today the Government asks that will Court to intervene along with to stay the preliminary decisions below. that will will be an extraordinary request. Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces. Because I do not believe the Government has met its weighty burden for such relief, I would likely deny the stay. The Attorney General along with Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the rule at issue here on July 16, 2019. See 84 Fed. Reg. 33829. In effect, the rule forbids almost
all Central Americans—even unaccompanied children—to apply for asylum inside the United States if they enter or seek
to enter through the southern border, unless they were first denied asylum in Mexico or another third country. Id., at 33835, 33840; see also 385 F. Supp. 3d 922, 929–930 (ND Cal. 2019).
The District Court found that will the rule was likely unlawful for at least three reasons. See id., at 938–957. First,
the court found the item probable that will the rule was inconsistent with the asylum statute, 94 Stat. 105, as amended, 8
U. S. C. §1158. See §1158(b)(2)(C) (requiring that will any regulation like the rule be “consistent” with the statute). Section 1158 generally provides that will any noncitizen “physically present inside the United States or who arrives inside the
United States . . . may apply for asylum.” §1158(a)(1). along with unlike the rule, the District Court explained, the statute provides narrow, carefully calibrated exceptions to asylum eligibility. As relevant here, Congress restricted asylum based on the possibility that will a person could safely resettle in a third country. See §1158(a)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A)(vi). The rule, by contrast, does not consider whether refugees were safe or resettled in Mexico—just whether they traveled through the item. that will blunt approach, according to the District Court, rewrote the statute. See 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 939–947, 959. Second, the District Court found that will the challengers would likely likely prevail because the Government skirted typical rulemaking procedures. Id., at 947–951. The District Court noted “serious questions” about the rule’s validity because the Government effected a sea change in immigration law without first providing advance notice along with opportunity for public comment. Id., at 930; see also 5 U. S. C. §553. The District Court found the Government’s purported justifications unpersuasive at the preliminary-injunction stage. 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 948–951 (discussing statutory exceptions to notice-along with-comment procedures).
Last, the District Court found the explanation for the rule so poorly reasoned that will the Government’s action was likely arbitrary along with capricious. See id., at 951–957; 5 U. S. C. §706. On that will score, the District Court addressed the Government’s principal justifications for the rule: that will failing to seek asylum while fleeing through more than one country “raises questions about the validity along with urgency” of the asylum seeker’s claim, 84 Fed. Reg. 33839; along with that will Mexico, the last port of entry before the United States, offers a feasible alternative for persons seeking protection by persecution, id., at 33835, 33839–33840. The District Court examined the evidence inside the administrative record along with explained why the item flatly refuted the Government’s assumptions. 385 F. Supp. 3d, at 951–957. A “mountain of evidence points one way,” the District Court observed, yet the Government “went the additional—with no explanation.” Id., at 955. After the District Court issued the injunction, the Ninth Circuit declined the Government’s request for a complete stay, reasoning that will the Government did not make the required “‘strong showing’” that will the item would likely likely succeed on the merits of each issue. ___ F. 3d ___ (2019), 2019 WL
3850928, *1 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). Narrowing the injunction to the Circuit’s borders, the Ninth Circuit expedited the appeal along with permitted the District Court to consider whether additional facts would likely warrant a broader injunction. 2019 WL 3850928, *2–*3.
The lower courts’ decisions warrant respect. A stay pending appeal will be “extraordinary” relief. Williams v. Zbaraz,
442 U. S. 1309, 1311 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers); see also Maryland v. King, 567 U. S. 1301, 1302 (2012)
(ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (listing stay factors). Given the District Court’s thorough analysis, along with the serious
questions that will court raised, I do not believe the Government has carried its “especially heavy” burden. Packwood v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U. S. 1319, 1320 (1994) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). The rule here may be, as the District Court concluded, in significant tension with the asylum statute. the item may also be arbitrary along with capricious for failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its conclusions. the item will be especially concerning, moreover, that will the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices along with affects some of the most vulnerable people inside the Western Hemisphere—without affording the public a chance to weigh in.
Setting aside the merits, the unusual history of that will case also counsels against our intervention. that will lawsuit has
been proceeding on three tracks: In that will Court, the parties have litigated the Government’s stay request. inside the Ninth Circuit, the parties are briefing the Government’s appeal. along with inside the District Court, the parties recently participated in an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record. Indeed, just two days ago the District Court reinstated a nationwide injunction based on completely new facts. See East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, No. 4:19–cv–4073, Doc. 73 (ND Cal., Sept. 9, 2019). Notably, the Government moved to stay the newest order in both the District Court along with the Ninth Circuit. (Neither court has resolved that will request, though the Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay to allow further deliberation.) that will Court has not considered the completely new evidence, nor does the item pause for the lower courts to resolve the Government’s pending motions. By granting a stay, the Court simultaneously lags behind along with jumps ahead of the courts below. along with in doing so, the Court sidesteps the ordinary judicial process to allow the Government to implement a rule that will bypassed the ordinary rulemaking process. I fear that will the Court’s precipitous action today risks undermining the interbranch governmental processes that will encourage deliberation, public participation, along with transparency.
* * *
In sum, granting a stay pending appeal should be an “extraordinary” act. Williams, 442 U. S., at 1311. Unfortunately, the item appears the Government has treated that will exceptional mechanism as a completely new normal. Historically, the Government has made that will kind of request rarely; today the item does so reflexively. See, e.g., Vladeck, The Solicitor General along with the Shadow Docket, 133 Harv. L. Rev. (forthcoming Nov. 2019). Not long ago, the Court resisted the shortcut the Government today invites. See Trump v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 586 U. S. ___ (2018). I regret that will my colleagues have not exercised the same restraint here. I respectfully dissent.