US: Supreme Court Says Trump Can Bar Asylum Seekers While Legal Fight Continues - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

USSupreme Court Says Trump Can Bar Asylum Seekers While Legal Fight Continues

07:05  12 september  2019
07:05  12 september  2019 Source:   nytimes.com

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

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

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to bar many Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States. The court said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from people who had traveled

Lower courts said the policy, which barred asylum applications from people who had entered the country unlawfully, conflicted with federal law. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused on Friday to allow the Trump administration to immediately enforce its new policy of denying asylum to

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to bar most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States, while the legal fight plays out in the courts.

Supreme Court Says Trump Can Bar Asylum Seekers While Legal Fight Continues© Luis Antonio Rojas for The New York Times Customs and Border Patrol officials checking the papers of a Venezuelan family seeking asylum at the border between Laredo, Tex., and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned order, said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country.

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of asylum crackdown

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of asylum crackdown U.S. SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO ENFORCE NEW ASYLUM RESTRICTIONS NATIONWIDE

Immigration experts say successfully achieving asylum in the U.S. is incredibly difficult, especially for those coming here from Central America. USA TODAY, USA TODAY.

A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can continue to enforce a policy that returns asylum seekers to Mexico while Legal advocates for migrants have denounced the policy, saying a spike in violence and overwhelmed shelters in Mexican border towns put the migrants at risk.

The court’s order was a major victory for the administration, allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation’s southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others. Mexican migrants, who need not travel through another country to reach the United States, are not affected by the new policy.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

It was the second time in recent months that the Supreme Court has allowed a major Trump administration immigration initiative to go forward. In July, the court allowed the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction of a barrier along the Mexican border. Last year, the court upheld President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect

Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect The Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday blocking a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's proposed ban on immigration asylum for anyone trying to cross the southern border by transiting through a third country. © Joe Raedle/Getty Images/File A group of people some of whom are coming from Honduras, Mexico, Cuba, and Guatemala, wait to turn themselves in at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel for asylum consideration on January 13, 2019, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

A federal judge said the government cannot require asylum seekers to ask for shelter in another country A federal judge on Monday issued a nationwide order barring the Trump administration from denying Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can continue to enforce a policy requiring some asylum - seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, saying the court’s action will “upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.”

The rules reversed longstanding asylum policies that allowed people to seek haven no matter how they got to the United States. A federal appeals court had largely blocked the policy.

Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the challengers in the new case, stressed that the Supreme Court’s action was provisional. “This is just a temporary step,” he said, “and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”

The case will almost certainly return to the Supreme Court, but that will take many months.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the acting director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, pledged on Wednesday night to “commence implementing the asylum rule ASAP.”

Supreme Court makes right decision allowing Trump asylum policy to take effect

Supreme Court makes right decision allowing Trump asylum policy to take effect The Supreme Court was right Wednesday to stop a lone federal district court judge in San Francisco from blocking a Trump administration policy designed to limit the ability of Central American migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. The new Trump administration policy requires migrants from Central America and elsewhere who first travel through Mexico to seek asylum there before seeking asylum in the U.S. Under the policy, a migrant first has to be refused asylum in Mexico before he or she could seek asylum here. The Trump administration policy also applies to migrants who travel through other third countries before seeking U.S.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal judge's order blocking the Trump administration's new asylum restrictions. The administration's policy, signed on November 9, would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of

The supreme court ruled on Wednesday to allow the Trump administration to enforce nationwide restrictions that would prevent most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the US. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South

“While congress continues to do nothing,” he wrote on Twitter, “@realDonaldTrump’s administration uses every tool in the toolbox to try and solve the crisis at our southern border.”

In a Supreme Court brief in the case, the solicitor general, Noel J. Francisco, said the new policy was needed to address “an unprecedented surge in the number of aliens who enter the country unlawfully across the southern border and, if apprehended, claim asylum and remain in the country while their claims are adjudicated.”

Under the policy, which was announced July 15, only immigrants who have been denied asylum in another country or who have been victims of “severe” human trafficking are permitted to apply in the United States. “The rule thus screens out asylum seekers who declined to request protection at the first opportunity,” Mr. Francisco wrote.

Under the rules, Hondurans and Salvadorans must seek and be denied asylum in Guatemala or Mexico before they can apply in the United States. Guatemalans must seek and be denied asylum in Mexico.

Migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala have made up the vast majority of asylum seekers who have tried to enter the United States in record numbers this year. The Border Patrol has arrested 419,831 migrant family members from those three countries at the southwestern border so far this fiscal year, compared with just 4,312 Mexican family members.

New border tent courts create a 'faux process' for asylum-seekers, attorneys say

New border tent courts create a 'faux process' for asylum-seekers, attorneys say "This system is set up to turn people away," said the director of an immigration clinic about the expansion of new DHS protocols in Texas.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday denied the Trump administration’s request that it be allowed to immediately enforce a new policy of denying asylum to those who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border, a change that lower courts declared possibly illegal. Four justices – Clarence Thomas

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump 's administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hard-line immigration policies. The court said the rule, which requires

The administration made the unilateral move after months of pushing Guatemala and Mexico to commit to going along with the plan. Mr. Trump went as far as to threaten both countries with tariffs unless they did more to halt the migration.

The administration struck such a deal with Guatemala in July that would force the country to absorb Central American migrants. But Guatemala’s Constitutional Court has ruled that it needs further approval, and the countries are still working on a plan to carry it out the deal.

The Mexican government has pushed back against the so-called safe-third-country agreement, which would force it to absorb asylum seekers from Guatemala.

Instead, Mexico deployed thousands of security personnel to its southern border and agreed to collaborate with the United States on a program that returns migrants to Mexico to wait out their cases.

Two federal trial judges had issued conflicting rulings on whether the new plan was lawful.

In July, Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the Federal District Court in Washington, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, refused to stop the administration’s rules.

That same day, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, blocked them, saying they were put in place without following the required legal procedures.

Children not exempt from Trump's toughest asylum policy, officials say

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling to stop President Trump from rejecting asylum bids from people who cross the Mexican border illegally. Although the legal fight isn’t over, the high court rebuff of Trump ’s request to block the order suggests skepticism about the administration’s legal case.

In effect, Trump ’s proposed rule would deny asylum to any migrant who traveled through a third country on their way to Tigar first entered a nationwide injunction against the third-country transit bar in July. The Trump administration then filed a stay application at the Supreme Court , asking the

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said Judge Tigar’s ruling “warrants respect.”

“The rule the government promulgated,” she wrote, “topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere — without affording the public a chance to weigh in.”

The two other members of the court’s liberal wing, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan, had dissented in earlier cases on Trump administration immigration policies. They did not note dissents from Wednesday’s order.

Judge Tigar ordered the administration to continue accepting applications from all otherwise eligible migrants, even if they had not sought asylum elsewhere on their journey north.

Judge Tigar said his ruling applied across the nation. Such nationwide injunctions have been the subject of much criticism, but the Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling on whether and when they are proper.

In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, narrowed the geographic scope of Judge Tigar’s more recent ruling while it considered the administration’s appeal, saying it should apply only in the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, which includes two border states, California and Arizona. (Two other border states, Texas and New Mexico, are in the jurisdictions of other federal appeals courts.)

On Monday, however, Judge Tigar again imposed a nationwide injunction, saying he had been presented with additional evidence justifying one. “Anything but a nationwide injunction,” he wrote, “will create major administrability issues.” On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked the new injunction and ordered the two sides to submit briefs on whether it should issue a stay.

After U.S. court ruling, Honduran newlyweds among migrants clinging to asylum dream

After U.S. court ruling, Honduran newlyweds among migrants clinging to asylum dream After U.S. court ruling, Honduran newlyweds among migrants clinging to asylum dream

[Read Mr. Trump ’s proclamation targeting the caravan and asylum seekers .] As he left the White House for Officials said migrants would be allowed to seek other protections if they could prove a risk of The Supreme Court upheld a later version of that ban after a nearly year-and-a-half legal fight .

The legal fight on that could return to the Supreme Court . But the legal battle over the regulation had provoked a dispute between Roberts and Trump , after The lower courts said federal law does not allow the president to make such changes. The statute says an asylum application must be accepted

In an emergency application to the Supreme Court last month seeking a stay of Judge Tigar’s initial ruling while the case moved forward, Mr. Francisco argued that the administration was entitled to skip ordinary notice and comment requirements for new regulations because foreign affairs were at issue and because a delay after the announcement of the procedures “may prompt an additional surge of asylum seekers.”

In any event, Mr. Francisco wrote, the Ninth Circuit’s narrower injunction, covering only the states in its jurisdiction, was still too broad. At most, he wrote, the injunction should cover only clients of the four groups challenging the new policy — East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab and Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles.

In response, the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the groups along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the administration was trying to rewrite a federal immigration law enacted in 1980. There was no reason, the A.C.L.U. said, to alter “the 40-year-long status quo while this case is heard on an expedited basis in the court of appeals.”

“The current ban would eliminate virtually all asylum at the southern border, even at ports of entry, for everyone except Mexicans (who do not need to transit through a third country to reach the United States),” the A.C.L.U.’s brief said. “The court should not permit such a tectonic change to U.S. asylum law.”

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

Tent courts hearings underway for migrants waiting in Mexico.
Hearings in tent courts in South Texas are underway for asylum-seekers forced to wait in Mexico while their immigration applications are considered. 

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!