Chris Cuomo Had a Former Leftist Call in to His Show. He Clearly...
This Town Filled Its Coffers With a Traffic Shakedown Scheme – Now They...
USAID You Want a Revolution?
Roy Cooper Dodges Tough Questions About His Deadly Soft-on-Crime Policies
Colorado Democrats Want to Trample First, Second Amendments With Latest Bill
White House Religious Liberty Commission Member Removed After Hijacking Antisemitism Heari...
Federal Judge Blocks Pete Hegseth From Reducing Sen. Mark Kelly's Pay Over 'Seditious...
AG Pam Bondi Vows to Prosecute Threats Against Lawmakers, Even Across Party Lines
20 Alleged 'Free Money' Gang Members Indicted in Houston on RICO, Murder, and...
'Green New Scam' Over: Trump Eliminates 2009 EPA Rule That Fueled Unpopular EV...
Tim Walz Wants Taxpayers to Give $10M in Forgivable Loans to Riot-Torn Businesses
The SAVE Act Fights Ends When It Lands on Trump's Desk for Signature
Georgia Man Sentenced to Over 3 Years in Prison for TikTok Threats to...
Walz Administration Claims $217M in Fraud After Prosecutor Pointed to Billions
2 Pakistani Nationals Charged in $10M Medicare Fraud Scheme
Tipsheet

SCOTUS Will Settle Once and For All the Issues Over Trump's Border Wall

SCOTUS Will Settle Once and For All the Issues Over Trump's Border Wall
AP Photo/Evan Vucci

The Supreme Court said they will hear two more cases regarding the immigration policies of the Trump administration—and it is very likely soon-to-be Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be hearing those arguments. On the docket are cased involving the administration’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that was aimed to curb the flow of migrants into the United States. Under this rule, migrants hoping to gain entry into our country must remain in neighboring Mexico to await their hearing. This was done to reportedly end the catch and release nonsense under the Obama administration, where, of course, these illegals wouldn’t show up for their court date. The other involves funding for Trump’s 2016 border wall initiative, a key 2016 campaign promise, where Trump diverted money for the military to fund the initiative (via Fox News):

Advertisement

One case involves the Trump administration's "remain in Mexico" asylum policy, and the other deals with funding for the wall being constructed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

In the other case, Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, the Trump administration is appealing lower-court rulings invalidating its “Migrant Protection Protocols”--the so-called “Remain in Mexico” program--for non-Mexican asylum-seekers, mostly coming from Central America.

The policy, which was established in January 2019, was aimed a reducing the flow of people entering the U.S. to seek asylum. Under this policy, they are returned to Mexico to await their hearings instead of being allowed into the U.S. The policy was first enforced at the San Ysidro, Calif. port of entry before being extended across the entire border.

[…]

The case of Trump v. Sierra club deals with a challenge to the president’s constitutional authority when transferring military funds to help build the border wall. At issue is how much discretion courts should have when the president seeks to repurpose $2.5 billion in military funds in the face of what he determines to be a "national emergency"-- the influx of immigrants and illegal drugs along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Advertisement

All will be decided, with another case regarding whether illegal aliens can be disregarded in the census. That’s another case Amy Coney Barrett is bound to sit on as well.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos