SUPREME COURT OKS TRUMP ASYLUM LIMITS
Court allows denial of asylum requests from migrants who traveled through other countries without seeking asylum.
WASHINGTON - The Trump administration can begin denying asylum requests from migrants at the southern border who have traveled through Mexico or another country without seeking protection there, after the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s block on the new restriction.
The justices put on hold a lower court’s ruling that the administration’s rule change could not be enforced pending additional legal action because it likely ran afoul of administrative law requirements.
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted their disapproval of the action.
“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” wrote Sotomayor.
“Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
Trump’s policy is one of the administration’s most significant efforts to deter asylum seekers at the southern border, and it is one of multiple tools federal immigration officials have deployed to prevent families and other asylum seekers from entering the United States.
A record number of Central American families have sought asylum in the past year, and most have been released to await court hearings, thwarting Trump’s efforts to curb a new wave of migrants. The Justice Department says more than 436,000 pending cases include an asylum application.
The Trump administration announced the change in July, and four immigrantrights groups quickly challenged it. A federal district judge in California ruled that the law was likely invalid because it is inconsistent with federal law. He also said it violated the Administrative Procedures Act, and he issued a nationwide injunction.
A panel of the 9th Circuit said the judge went too far.