US: Supreme Court may again fast-track a legal dispute over Trump's immigration plans - - PressFrom - US

USSupreme Court may again fast-track a legal dispute over Trump's immigration plans

01:30  07 september  2019
01:30  07 september  2019 Source:

House Democrats lose bid to fast-track Trump tax return lawsuit

House Democrats lose bid to fast-track Trump tax return lawsuit A U.S. judge refused on Thursday to fast-track a congressional lawsuit seeking to force disclosure of President Donald Trump's federal tax returns, saying it was a complicated and important matter that should not be rushed. © Reuters/Tasos Katopodis FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump returns after travelling to the AMVETS convention in Kentucky, at the South Lawn of the White House in Washington U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington said in a written order that under U.S.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld President Trump ’ s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, delivering to the president on Tuesday a political victory and an endorsement of his power to control immigration at a time of political upheaval about the treatment of

Trump administration will ask Supreme Court to reverse DACA ruling. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration is seeking a fast track to the Supreme Court in The high court has allowed other Trump administration policies to continue, most notably his immigration travel ban, over federal

Sep. 6--WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is weighing a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration that seeks to close the door to nearly all migrants who seek asylum at the southern border. And once again, the justices are being asked to decide a far-reaching legal question on a rushed basis, without the usual oral arguments or months of deliberation.

Supreme Court may again fast-track a legal dispute over Trump's immigration plans© AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin Security guards the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday June 25, 2015.

Since 1980, U.S. law has promised those who flee persecution and violence in their home country a right to at least apply for asylum here. But on July 16, the Trump administration announced a new rule that would declare "ineligible " those who traveled through Mexico and did not seek asylum there.

President's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen loses round in fee fight

President's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen loses round in fee fight President Donald Trump's imprisoned ex-personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, lost a round in his longshot bid to get the Trump Organization to cover all legal costs. Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Joel Cohen said Thursday that the company only owes for legal costs of investigations already begun in July 2017. That's when Cohen asserts he reached an oral agreement to have the costs covered. His costs then rose dramatically when he was criminally charged last year. Cohen pleaded guilty to several charges, including that he broke campaign finance laws and lied to Congress. He is serving a three-year prison term.

President Trump deplored “ridiculous rulings” from California judges after a federal court blocked his “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both We’ll see them at the Supreme Court .” Mr. Trump may have been confused about which court actually ruled

A divided Supreme Court upheld President Trump ' s immigration travel ban as a legitimate exercise of executive branch authority. The ruling reverses a series of lower court decisions that had struck down the ban on predominantly Muslim countries as unconstitutional. It was a major victory for Trump .

The emergency appeal filed late last month on behalf of Atty. Gen. William Barr asks the justices to set aside lower court orders blocking the rule and allow it to be enforced immediately. A decision could come within a week.

If the court's conservatives agree and grant Barr's appeal, it would be the latest example of how the Trump administration is making major changes in the execution of laws while bypassing Congress and avoiding months or even years of fighting in lower federal courts.

Normally, the high court agrees to review and decide a legal question only after a case has been decided by a federal district judge and a federal appeals court.

But increasingly in the Trump era, the justices are deciding major issues by acting on emergency appeals filed after one of the administration's new rules is blocked in a lower court.

Trump blasts ‘totally illegal’ DACA order, says Obama didn’t have the right to sign it

Trump blasts ‘totally illegal’ DACA order, says Obama didn’t have the right to sign it President Trump said the Obama-era executive order granting protections to some immigrants who came to the country as minors was a “totally illegal document."

Mr. Trump ’ s efforts to restrict immigration and increase deportations of undocumented immigrants began days after he took office when he signed the first While lower- court judges again sought to block the restrictions, the Supreme Court let the ban go into effect while it considered the case.

After ruling in favor of Trump , SCOTUS remanded the travel order dispute to the lower courts . That seems like a subtle legal question that will need to be expounded upon by experts when and if The Supreme Court held that the President possesses the statutory authority to impose the travel ban’ s

In July, for example, Trump won the right to divert billions of dollars that Congress appropriated for the military to begin building the U.S. Mexico border wall he promised during his 2016 campaign. Congress had refused to pay for the wall, so Trump declared he had the emergency authority to transfer money from other departments and agencies.

A federal judge in Oakland and the 9th Circuit Court blocked the transfer as illegal. But acting on an emergency appeal from Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco, the high court voted 5-4 to lift the lower court decisions in a one-paragraph order in Trump vs. Sierra Club. The justices did not hear arguments in the case and did not issue a majority opinion or a dissent.

University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck says Francisco has been "unusually aggressive in seeking emergency or extraordinary relief " from the justices, and he has been winning. "I think there's no question there has been a shift in how at least a majority of the justices approach such applications, " he said.

Louisiana Supreme Court dismisses NFC Championship Game lawsuit

Louisiana Supreme Court dismisses NFC Championship Game lawsuit While the news may be unsurprising, it will be very welcome for the NFL. The suit could have ultimately led to Roger Goodell giving a deposition, which is the last thing the league would've wanted.

The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’ s request to intervene in the ongoing legal fight over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals After months passed without a ruling from the 9th Circuit, the Justice Department returned to the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, 2018, and again asked

The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will stay out of the dispute concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for now. Alsup said a nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy."

In the past, it was rare for the government's top lawyers to ask the high court to intervene and rule in a pending case. Under the court's rules, lawyers filing such appeals have to argue that their clients face a serious or irreparable harm if the high court fails to act. And the justices have often said they are reluctant to decide an important legal question on a rushed basis.

Irv Gornstein, director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown's law school, cited several reasons for the change.

"We have a president who is pursuing many more controversial and divisive policies than his predecessors. We have lower courts that are skeptical of both the president and his policies. We have a solicitor general's office that is optimistic that taking issues to the high court will bear fruit. And we have a Supreme Court that is ready to act at an early stage when it thinks the lower courts have gone off the rails, " he said.

The asylum law is now at the center of Trump's immigration battle. The law says, "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States, whether or not at a designated port of arrival... may apply for asylum."

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of asylum crackdown


The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to issue a quick ruling on the policy of Please read the rules before joining the discussion. Trump asks Supreme Court to fast - track ruling on Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked in the request Friday that a number of legal challenges to the

It' s a big win for the Trump administration as the Supreme Court allows Trump to partly enforce his controversial ban. Elizabeth Keatinge (@elizkeatinge) has more. Buzz60.

Trump and his administration have chafed at this open-door policy. Officials say it permits tens of thousands of migrants to get a foothold in this country while their asylum claims work their way slowly through the immigration courts. They say only a small percentage will finally win their claims.

The Justice Department told the court it had more than 436, 000 asylum claims pending.

But rather than persuade Congress to change the law, Trump has sought to weaken it through new regulations.

On July 16, the administration announced what it called an "interim final rule " that would deem migrants "ineligible " for asylum if they had traveled across Mexico without seeking asylum there.

A federal judge in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit blocked the new rule from taking effect, ruling that it conflicted with the promise of the asylum law.

But Francisco filed an appeal on Aug. 26 that faulted the lower court judges for "second-guessing " the administration's policy and urged the high court to allow the new rule to go into effect. It will "screen out asylum seekers who declined to request protection at the first opportunity " in Mexico, and it will "alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system, " he said in Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant.

Francisco pointed to provisions in the asylum law that said immigrants could be sent to a "safe third country " for protection. He also noted the attorney general was authorized to set "other conditions or limitations " on asylum.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said the court "should not permit such a tectonic change to the U.S. asylum law." If put into effect, the new rule "would eliminate virtually all asylum at the southern border, " they said in a response filed Wednesday. "The ban is a blatant end-run around the scheme Congress created " and rests on an "expansive view of executive authority to rewrite the statute."

The court has no deadline or timetable for acting on the appeal. But usually, the justices take some action within a week or two after receiving briefs from both sides.


(c)2019 the Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read More

Children not exempt from Trump's toughest asylum policy, officials say.
The new enforcement will include turning back children who arrive at the southern border without their parents. © Paul Ratje Image: FILES-US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-JUSTICE-ASYLUM The new policy would make asylum seekers ineligible if they passed through another country on their way to the United States and did not first seek asylum there. The officials said they will return immigrants who arrived in the U.S. on or after July 16 to their home countries if they cannot prove they sought asylum elsewhere.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!