U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce new asylum rules


The judge's order against the asylum policy was one of two recent setbacks in federal court for the Trump Administration as it sought to deal with legal issues over asylum as part of its efforts to impose new controls on entry across the U.S. -Mexico border.

The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals then refused the administration's request to lift Judge Tigar's order. Roberts joined the court's other conservatives in that ruling.

The Supreme Court rebuff means the asylum ban can not be enforced while the administration appeals a lower court ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the deciding vote in the nine-person US Supreme Court, siding with some of the more left-leaning justices.

The White House slammed a lower court earlier on Thursday for its decision to block Trump's executive order, Sputnik reported.

"We are disappointed that the Court did not stay one of the unprecedented 25 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, but the Court has not yet fully considered the merits of this case", Stafford said in a statement to CNN. A majority of those Defense Department staff providing additional support to border patrol agents have since been withdrawn. "The burden of dealing with these issues has fallen disproportionately on the courts of our circuit". "They have escaped the law, undermined the system, and made it harder for us to actually help real asylum-seekers by flooding the system with false claims".

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce new asylum rules
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce new asylum rules

"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States", the relevant federal statute says, may apply for asylum - "whether or not at a designated port of arrival".

Trump's comments elicited a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who shot back that the federal judiciary does not "have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges". Only those applying at a port of entry would be eligible, Mr. Trump said, invoking what he said were his national security powers to protect the nation's borders. The administration may eventually, as Trump predicted, win in the Supreme Court, but this round went to the challengers, and the eventual fate of the case nearly certainly lies in Roberts' hands.

The court's order leaves in place lower court rulings that blocked Trump's proclamation in November automatically denying asylum to people who enter the country from Mexico without going through official border crossings.

But the Justice Department's strategy of aggressively filing appeals to the Supreme Court to overturn rulings unfavorable to the President may not be in keeping with the court's modus operandi, Toobin said.

This week, the U.S. announced that it would send some asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait out their immigration hearings, a move rights groups say will put migrants and refugees in danger.

Senate passes stop-gap funding bill in effort to avert government shutdown
A person familiar with negotiations tells The Associated Press that the White House would prefer a longer-term package. More importantly, the border fencing Schumer backed in 2013 is different than how Trump has described his border wall.