There's a big huzzah in the mainstream media today about how the Supreme Court "blocked" the new asylum rules put forth by the Trump administration. That coverage shows that the reporters don't understand what happened.
First, the new rules were issued that state that the only place where one can ask for asylum is at a port of entry. Those who enter illegally cannot then ask for asylum if they are caught.
Second, a group of illegals went to court and asked that the new rules be overturned as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the requirements of the law.
Third, the district court judge granted an order temporarily blocking enforcement of the new rules until the case is fully presented and adjudicated. In other words, the people bringing the suit and those similarly situated cannot be deported back to their countries until the case is decided. If that order had not been issued, the case would have been moot because the plaintiffs would be in Central America.
This decision is not surprising. It is a finding that there is a real dispute here. The plaintiffs have a good chance of winning according to the district court judge.
The case then went up through the system to the Supreme Court. That court was asked to block the district court's ruling while the case is pending. That would let the new rule go into effect while the case was pending. The Supreme Court then denied that application.
So what does that mean? It means that the Supreme Court did not think that the outcome was so clearly going to be in favor of the government that it would let the rule go into effect in the meantime. To do that, it would take a finding that the plaintiffs had essentially no chance of winning. It is not a final decision in favor of the plaintiffs. It is one that is made on a basis that is heavily weighted in the favor of the illegals. It's not a surprise that they won. Indeed, it is more surprising that four justices dissented and would have ruled in the favor of the government.
When this case eventually gets back to SCOTUS on appeal, it is safe to say that there are already four votes in favor of allowing the new regulations to proceed. The other five justices votes are less clear. If I had to bet, though, I would think the court is more likely than not to allow the rule to go into effect.
In short, SCOTUS did not block the rules. SCOTUS did what it is supposed to do to allow the case to proceed without becoming moot. It's not the same thing.
PS == I know that yesterday I said I had posted for the last time in 2018, but hey I changed my mind. I am really going to try not to post for the rest of the year, though.
First, the new rules were issued that state that the only place where one can ask for asylum is at a port of entry. Those who enter illegally cannot then ask for asylum if they are caught.
Second, a group of illegals went to court and asked that the new rules be overturned as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the requirements of the law.
Third, the district court judge granted an order temporarily blocking enforcement of the new rules until the case is fully presented and adjudicated. In other words, the people bringing the suit and those similarly situated cannot be deported back to their countries until the case is decided. If that order had not been issued, the case would have been moot because the plaintiffs would be in Central America.
This decision is not surprising. It is a finding that there is a real dispute here. The plaintiffs have a good chance of winning according to the district court judge.
The case then went up through the system to the Supreme Court. That court was asked to block the district court's ruling while the case is pending. That would let the new rule go into effect while the case was pending. The Supreme Court then denied that application.
So what does that mean? It means that the Supreme Court did not think that the outcome was so clearly going to be in favor of the government that it would let the rule go into effect in the meantime. To do that, it would take a finding that the plaintiffs had essentially no chance of winning. It is not a final decision in favor of the plaintiffs. It is one that is made on a basis that is heavily weighted in the favor of the illegals. It's not a surprise that they won. Indeed, it is more surprising that four justices dissented and would have ruled in the favor of the government.
When this case eventually gets back to SCOTUS on appeal, it is safe to say that there are already four votes in favor of allowing the new regulations to proceed. The other five justices votes are less clear. If I had to bet, though, I would think the court is more likely than not to allow the rule to go into effect.
In short, SCOTUS did not block the rules. SCOTUS did what it is supposed to do to allow the case to proceed without becoming moot. It's not the same thing.
PS == I know that yesterday I said I had posted for the last time in 2018, but hey I changed my mind. I am really going to try not to post for the rest of the year, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment