•   
  •   
W

World Two major Supreme Court immigration cases just went up in smoke

20:55  03 february  2021
20:55  03 february  2021 Source:   vox.com

Biden Admin. Takes 'Essential Step' in Altering Trump-Era Immigration Policy

  Biden Admin. Takes 'Essential Step' in Altering Trump-Era Immigration Policy James McHenry was named the EOIR's acting chief in 2017, and was appointed permanent director the next year. He led a number of initiatives that many immigration advocates criticized, such attempting to limit asylum standards and urging immigration judges to close cases quickly."This is an essential step that President Biden has taken to remove McHenry from leadership of the immigration courts," Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Newsweek.

Just a few months ago, the current Supreme Court term was likely to be one of the most consequential terms for immigration law in a long time. The Court planned to hear two cases — now known as Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab and Biden v. Sierra Club — which questioned the legality of anti- immigration policies put in place during the Trump administration. But the Biden administration rescinded one of these policies and drastically curtailed the other, and asked the justices to remove arguments in both Innovation Law Lab and Sierra Club from its calendar in light of these policy changes.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last week in favor of an undocumented immigrant seeking discretionary relief from a federal deportation proceeding. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, rejected what he described as the federal government’s attempt “to endow the Executive The case is Niz-Chavez v. Garland. According to federal immigration law, a nonpermanent resident subject to removal proceedings may seek relief from the attorney general, who has the discretionary authority to “cancel removal” and adjust immigration status if the alien in question has maintained 10 years of

Just a few months ago, the current Supreme Court term was likely to be one of the most consequential terms for immigration law in a long time. The Court planned to hear two cases — now known as Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Lab and Biden v. Sierra Club — which questioned the legality of anti-immigration policies put in place during the Trump administration.

a bridge with a mountain in the background: Former President Donald Trump’s border wall will no longer receive a Supreme Court hearing. © Micah Garen/Getty Images Former President Donald Trump’s border wall will no longer receive a Supreme Court hearing.

But the Biden administration rescinded one of these policies and drastically curtailed the other, and asked the justices to remove arguments in both Innovation Law Lab and Sierra Club from its calendar in light of these policy changes.

The Biggest Decision Democrats Face

  The Biggest Decision Democrats Face Will they get rid of the filibuster if it means passing their voting-rights and election-reform agenda?The party’s immediate political fate in the 2022 and 2024 elections is likely to turn mostly on whether Joe Biden can successfully control the coronavirus outbreak—restarting the economy and returning a sense of normalcy to daily life. But the contours of American politics just over that horizon, through 2030 and beyond, will be determined even more by whether Democrats can establish new national standards for the conduct of elections through a revised Voting Rights Act and sweeping legislation known as H.R.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment. The court has declined to insert itself in similar cases in recent years and has not issued a major Second Amendment decision in over a decade when it ruled in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that individuals have a right to keep guns in their homes. With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett Amy Coney Barrett Five hot-button issues Biden didn't mention in his address to Congress Conservative justices

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider how much protection the Second Amendment provides for carrying a gun outside the home. The case is the first time in more than a decade that the court has agreed to take up a central issue of the gun rights debate, something it has consistently ducked since issuing a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted those requests.

President Joe Biden signed a proclamation on January 20, his first day in office, declaring that “no more American taxpayer dollars [shall] be diverted to construct a border wall,” ending his predecessor’s plans to spend billions of dollars appropriated for the military on this wall.

The same day, then-acting Secretary of Homeland Security David Pekoske issued a memorandum that curtailed the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy. That policy forced tens of thousands of migrants who seek asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico while their cases were being processed (the Trump administration stopped processing these cases last March, citing the Covid-19 pandemic).

If 'Systemic Racism' Is Real, Why Does Biden Want To Bring Immigrants Here? | Opinion

  If 'Systemic Racism' Is Real, Why Does Biden Want To Bring Immigrants Here? | Opinion The progressive worldview insists on America's endemic racism as the only allowable explanation for socioeconomic disparities. Given that worldview, administration officials should explain the following dilemma: Why do they want to increase migration from Third World countries, which would only plunge the newcomers into this maelstrom of oppression? Biden has asserted that black children are at risk of getting shot by the police whenever they step outside.

"The inability of the Supreme Court in this situation to reach a decision and put forward a ruling has a negative impact on millions of people in the United States," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters, calling on Senate Republicans to confirm a ninth justice. CCP-sponsored firms leveraged domestic dominance to enter the international marketplace, undercutting their competitors worldwide. International “partners” were then subjected to asymmetric regulatory action, excluding them from China. (Uber is one recent case of this phenomenon.

The Trump administration will be allowed to tighten immigration restrictions with a policy that could see immigrants denied a green card if they are likely to receive public benefits, the US Supreme Court has ruled. Last August, the Trump administration expanded the so-called “public charge” rule, which required immigration officials to turn away individuals likely to become primarily dependent on direct government cash assistance or institutionalization, to include a wider range of government benefits.

The Biden administration’s new policy does not end the remain in Mexico program in its entirety, but it does provide that new asylum seekers will not be forced to enroll in the Trump-era program.

Technically, the two cases remain before the justices, and the Court could place them back on its argument calendar at any time. But the Court’s decision to cancel oral arguments in the two immigration cases is a very good sign that the suits will eventually be disposed of without a decision.

Had Trump remained in office, it is very likely that the Supreme Court would have upheld both programs. Although a lower court halted Trump’s plans to spend military funds on the border wall, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked that lower court decision last summer. The justices also temporarily reinstated the remain in Mexico policy last March, after a lower court ruled against it.

Thus, had the two cases remained on the Court’s calendar, it is likely that a future Republican president would have been able to reinstate Trump’s policies immediately, and without having to worry about legal challenges. Wednesday’s order, by contrast, means that, if a future president wants to reinstate the policies, they will likely face the same legal challenges that Trump faced.

The Supreme Court’s new, deeply fractured decision on churches and the pandemic, explained .
Amy Coney Barrett just handed down her first Supreme Court opinion, and it’s surprisingly revealingInterestingly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote her first signed opinion since joining the Supreme Court, and her opinion takes a position that is slightly to the left of her most conservative colleagues. Though Barrett’s opinion is still quite conservative, it suggests that there may be some daylight between her and her most reactionary colleagues.

usr: 0
This is interesting!