General Discussion

babylonsister

(171,066 posts) Fri Dec 21, 2018, 04:12 PM Dec 2018

Supreme Court refuses to restore Trump's temporary asylum restrictions

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/422508-supreme-court-refuses-to-restore-trumps-temporary-asylum?fbclid=IwAR3-M__yribgsjS1S5-fpyacL3Hbysqklrt84ObdvfCCXD9TFHBZF4WNYuw&fbclid=IwAR1CFomWweYDRFxQcAATB_SRMyBMbD9Yc0e75IDUBsVeZ0lImlucZHH3ldw

Supreme Court refuses to restore Trump's temporary asylum restrictions
By John Bowden - 12/21/18 02:59 PM EST

The Supreme Court on Friday refused a request from the Trump administration to restore newly-implemented restrictions to prevent some migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally from applying for asylum.

Reuters reported that the court denied the motion from the Justice Department following a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month that rejected the Trump administration's efforts to delay a judge's order blocking the new asylum policy.

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security jointly issued the rule in November, seeking to tamp down on what the Trump administration characterized as "meritless asylum claims from aliens who place a tremendous burden on our resources."

Later that month, U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar sided with the rule's opponents, temporarily blocking the order's provisions applying to undocumented immigrants suspected to have crossed the border illegally.

This breaking news story will be updated.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court refuses to restore Trump's temporary asylum restrictions (Original Post) babylonsister Dec 2018 OP

So much winning underpants Dec 2018 #1

Here's what kills me, he wanted the temporary ban to sort things out. Wasn't it a 120 ban? NightWatcher Dec 2018 #2

Different order: That was the ban on people from certain countries entering on visas.. Princess Turandot Dec 2018 #4

The vote was 5-4... Princess Turandot Dec 2018 #3

underpants

(182,823 posts)

1. So much winning

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2018, 04:15 PM

Dec 2018

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)

2. Here's what kills me, he wanted the temporary ban to sort things out. Wasn't it a 120 ban?

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2018, 04:20 PM

Dec 2018

And didn't he try that two years ago?

Shouldn't the point be moot, since nearly two years have passed? Shouldnt he have figured out the underlying issue (if there were one) that caused him to "need" a short period of time to think?