US top court rejects asylum seekers bid

Gorsuch asks 1st questions

WASHINGTON, April 17, (Agencies): The US Supreme Court sidestepped a turbulent debate over illegal immigration on Monday, turning away an appeal by a group of asylum-seeking Central American women and their children who aimed to clarify the constitutional rights of people who the government has prioritized for deportation.

The families, 28 women and 33 children ages 2 to 17 from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, had hoped the justices would overturn a lower court’s ruling preventing them from having their expedited removal orders reviewed by a federal judge.

That Philadelphia-based court said the status of the families, all apprehended in Texas and later held in Pennsylvania, was akin to non-citizens who are denied entry at the border and they were not entitled to a court hearing to challenge that decision.

Immigration has become an even hotter topic than usual in the United States since President Donald Trump took office in January. His administration has ordered construction of a border wall with Mexico intended to curb illegal immigration, and plans to expand the number of people targeted for expedited removal, a process that applies to non-citizens lacking valid entry documents.

The families have said they were escaping threats, violence and police authorities unable or unwilling to help in their home countries.

Lead plaintiff Rosa Castro fled El Salvador to escape years of rape, beatings and emotional abuse by the father of her son, who was 6 years old when they arrived in the United States in 2015, according to court papers. Lesly Cruz, who also arrived in 2015, fled Honduras to protect her daughter from sexual assault by members of the Mara Salvatrucha armed gang, the court papers said.

The families were apprehended in Texas within hours of illegally crossing the US-Mexican border. After claiming asylum, they were determined by immigration judges to lack “credible fear” of persecution, and placed in expedited removal proceedings.

Gorsuch

Supervision

The families were detained at Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania, where 12 women and their children remain. The others have been released under orders of supervision, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing them.

The women challenged in federal court the rejection of their asylum claims, alleging a violation of their right to due process under the US Constitution.

In August, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said they may be treated the same way as non-citizens seeking initial admission to the United States, who do not have any constitutional rights of review if denied entry. The women appealed to the Supreme Court. There has been a 93 percent drop since December of parents and children caught trying to cross the Mexican border illegally into the United States, which US officials attribute to the Trump administration’s tough policies.

Meanwhile, it took less than 15 minutes for newly minted Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to ask his first questions from the bench.

Gorsuch and his colleagues were hearing arguments Monday for the first time since President Donald Trump’s pick was sworn in April 10.

The case before the justices involved a procedural issue in a federal worker’s employment discrimination claim. Gorsuch asked lawyer Christopher Landau four questions in a row, saying he was “sorry for taking up so much time.”

The high court is back to its full contingent of nine members after being short-handed since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death more than 14 months ago.

The session started with Chief Justice John Roberts welcoming Gorsuch and wishing him “a long and happy career in our common calling.”

Gorsuch jumped right into the fray on Monday in his first day hearing cases as a member of the US Supreme Court, asking so many questions that at one point he apologized for talking so much.

The first of the three cases before the justices on Monday involved an employment dispute. Gorsuch showed no hint of nervousness sitting alongside his eight new colleagues as he grilled lawyer Christopher Landau over the fine points of a law governing civil service employees.

Landau represented a man claiming he was discriminated against by his employer, the US Census Bureau.

“I apologize for taking up so much time,” the blackrobed Gorsuch said, sitting back in his high-backed chair and smiling.

The other two cases the justices will hear on Monday involve a property dispute and the timing of securities class-action lawsuits.

Gorsuch formally joined the court on April 10 after being confirmed three days earlier by the Republicanled Senate over broad Democratic opposition.

The court had its full complement of nine justices, five conservatives and four liberals, for arguments for the first time since the death of long-serving conservative Antonin Scalia in February 2016. Gorsuch restored the conservative majority on the court.

Happy

Chief Justice John Roberts welcomed Gorsuch to the court before oral arguments began, wishing him “a long and happy career” in the lifetime job. Gorsuch thanked Roberts and the other justices for their warm welcome.

Gorsuch showed his well-known, heavy focus on the text of statutes in order to judge cases before him. Citing a section of the Civil Service Reform Act, he asked Landau where in the statute does it say federal district courts may hear cases involving both discrimination and civil service claims.

“Looking at the plain language of the statute, just help me with that,” Gorsuch said.

One of the lawyers due to argue the second case before the justices on Monday will be a familiar face to Gorsuch. Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general in Democratic former President Barack Obama’s Justice Department, heartily endorsed Gorsuch’s nomination, even testifying at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

Gorsuch, at 49 the youngest new justice in a quarter century, served for a decade on the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals before Trump nominated him in January. Trump was able to fill Scalia’s vacancy only because Senate Republicans last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.