World Supreme Court agrees to hear Republican effort to defend Trump-era policy on immigrants and welfare

01:45  30 october  2021
01:45  30 october  2021 Source:   foxnews.com

The Supreme Court floats a startling expansion to police immunity from the law

  The Supreme Court floats a startling expansion to police immunity from the law A new opinion suggests that “qualified immunity” could become something much closer to absolute immunity from lawsuits.Though the Court’s decision in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna is fairly straightforward — the justices held that Officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas “did not violate clearly established law” when he briefly used his knee to hold down a suspect who was armed with a knife and who had allegedly threatened his girlfriend and her two children with a chainsaw — it contains two sentences that should alarm police reformers.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by Republican states to take over the defense of a Trump-era rule that restricted green cards for immigrants deemed likely to be reliant on welfare – after the Biden administration dropped the legal defense of the rule.

The "public charge" rule was introduced during the Trump administration and expanded the definition of "public charge" as an immigrant who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months within a 36-month period. Whether an immigrant would be a "public charge" would be considered when they applied for permanent residency in the U.S.

The Supreme Court’s very unusual new abortion orders, explained

  The Supreme Court’s very unusual new abortion orders, explained The Court still won’t stop Texas from banning abortions, but it wants to bring this saga to a final resolution quickly.The two orders arise out of two separate cases. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson is a suit brought by abortion providers hoping to block SB 8. United States v. Texas involves a case brought by President Joe Biden’s administration after the Court denied relief to the abortion provider plaintiffs in early September, despite the fact that the law is unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.


The Trump administration said the rule protected American taxpayers, safeguarded welfare programs and ensured immigrants were self-reliant. Opponents of the rule said it was cruel, discriminatory and would stop immigrants getting the help they needed.

The rule was struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Biden administration said it would not seek to defend the rule in court.

"The 2019 public charge rule was not in keeping with our nation's values. It penalized those who access health benefits and other government services available to them," DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in March.

The Never-Trump Case for Ron DeSantis

  The Never-Trump Case for Ron DeSantis The Florida governor is flawed, but within normal parameters. The former president poses a unique threat.Were the GOP base less easily duped, it would move on, as when George H. W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney lost White House bids. As president, Trump failed to build his border wall or bring home the troops. No 75-year-old candidate who lost the popular vote to general-election opponents as weak as Hillary Clinton and Biden portends future glory for his party. And Trump energizes intense opposition like no one else, uniting otherwise divided Democrats while alienating a faction of conservatives and independents who normally vote Republican.

As a result, a coalition of 11 Republican states led by Arizona sought to intervene to defend the rule, petitioning the Court to accept review of the case and have it heard in full. They accused the Biden administration of surrendering the case in a way that had been done by no prior administration.

"Without any prior warning, the [Biden administration] sprung an unprecedented, coordinated, and multi-court gambit," the petition says. "Through it, they attempted to execute simultaneous, strategic surrenders in all pending appeals involving the Rule."

Joining Arizona in the suit were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia.


"In particular, the States have important interests in conserving their Medicaid and related social welfare budgets," the petition says. "Providing for the healthcare needs of economically disadvantaged individuals represents a substantial portion of the States’ budgets."

Biden appears to use prepared list of reporters again following G20 summit in Rome

  Biden appears to use prepared list of reporters again following G20 summit in Rome Biden appears to use prepared list of reporters again following G20 summit in RomeBiden appears to use prepared list of reporters after G20 summit in Rome: 'I'm told we should start with AP'

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who led the suit, said in a statement: "When other federal officials won't defend the law, I will."

"The Public Charge Rule is a commonsense policy based on a real inconvenient truth. Overrunning our welfare programs right now would be like pulling back the last safety net for Americans who need it most," he said.

It is the latest Republican legal battle waged against Biden’s efforts to roll back Trump-era immigration policies.

The Biden administration is currently re-instating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) -- a policy that kept migrants in Mexico as they await their hearings -- after a court order in response to a Republican lawsuit which claimed the administration undid the Trump-era policy illegally.

On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo terminating the policy, even as he said that DHS would still be complying with the court order until the injunction was ended.

The Supreme Court must decide if it loves religious liberty more than the death penalty .
A new religion case forces the Supreme Court to confront the legacy of one of its cruelest decisions.As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, one of the Constitution’s “clearest command[s]” is that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” But that’s exactly what the Court permitted in Ray.

usr: 0
This is interesting!