[ad_1]
The rule, issued by the Ministries of Justice and Homeland Security, prohibits migrants who have resided or crossed third countries from seeking asylum in the United States, thus prohibiting persons traveling to Mexico from seeking asylum in the United States. ;asylum.
Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted their dissent. Five judges were required to grant the application. the votes of the others have not been announced publicly.
"Once again, the executive has issued a rule that seeks to end long-standing practices of refugees seeking shelter from persecution," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Ginsburg, later referring to "some of the people the most vulnerable in the Western Hemisphere ".
"Although this nation has long left the door open for refugees – and although the stakes for asylum seekers can not be greater – the government has implemented its regulations without first giving the refugees the right to leave. public notice and invite the generally required public opinion, "Sotomayor added.
The Supreme Court's order is the last decision in a case that has turned upside down between the lower courts.
In the midst of the exchanges, the Department of Justice had asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
In his dissenting opinion, Sotomayor criticized both the implementation of the new settlement and the majority decision to rule in the 9th Circuit could fully resolve the government's urgent request to suspend the District Court's injunction.
"The court," writes Sotomayor, "bypasses the ordinary court process."
Steve Vladeck, an analyst at CNN's Supreme Court and a professor at the University of Texas Law School, agreed that the judges allowed the administration to "queue up".
"Once again, the Supreme Court authorizes a controversial policy of the Trump administration to come into force even as legal challenges to this policy pass through the lower courts," said Vladeck.
The Trump administration has strongly criticized what it sees as a relatively new judicial phenomenon, according to which a single district judge ends a policy throughout the country before he can infiltrate the lower courts and reach the Supreme Court. .
He added that the national injunctions create an "unjust and one-sided system in which the democratically responsible government must defend itself, case by case, for its policy to be applied, while those who challenge it have to find only A single compassionate judge ".
The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that it would continue to challenge the rule. "We will continue to challenge the ban on the merits because it endangers countless lives," said ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt.
[ad_2]
Source link