Oh, Here's Another Policy Abigail Spanberger and VA Dems Support That Screws Over...
So, That New VA Congressional Map That Dems Want Could Get Tossed
Trump Just Won Huge Concession From Iranian Regime
Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Religious Freedom Case
Rabid Animal Rights Activists Swarm Beagle Research Facility to Steal Dogs
This Bill Would Create 'Homelessness Courts' and Ban Camping on Public Property
Trump Just Went Scorched Earth on Supreme Court Over Recent Rulings
Democrats and the Media Go to Bat for the Southern Poverty Law Center
Gun Control Calls Follow Shreveport Shooting, but There's an Issue
Iran Just Reached For Another Piece of Leverage As The IRGC Threatens to...
Europe Gathers to Plan Securing the Strait of Hormuz—Once the United States Finishes...
Longtime Georgia Democrat, Congressman David Scott, Dies at 80
Iran State Media and Officials Are Reportedly Ready for the War to Resume
Victor Davis Hanson Says Iran Is Running Out of Time
AI Data Centers: The New Populist Target
Tipsheet

The Supreme Court Hands the Trump Administration a Victory on Immigration

The Supreme Court Hands the Trump Administration a Victory on Immigration
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal appeals courts must defer to immigration judges’ determinations on whether asylum-seekers face harm in their home countries severe enough to qualify for U.S. protection, marking a victory for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. 

Advertisement

The decision is expected to streamline the asylum process and block common tactics used by applicants and their attorneys to delay removal from the country.

The case, Urias-Orellana et al. v. Bondi, centered on a family that entered the country from El Salvador in 2021 and pursued asylum. They claimed they were being persecuted based on credible testimony that a hitman had killed two of the husband’s half-brothers and was targeting their family with death threats, extortion demands, and violence. 

An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found the testimony credible but ruled the facts did not rise to the level of “persecution” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. They denied asylum and ordered removal. The case was appealed, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court agreed, with Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the majority opinion.

“We conclude that the statute requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution,” Jackson wrote. “Accordingly, we affirm.”

Under the ruling, federal appeals courts must now defer to immigration agencies on questions of asylum. Once an agency determines that the facts do not establish persecution, courts have far less ability to second-guess that judgment, making successful asylum appeals more difficult. The decision also streamlines removals and reduces administrative delays by eliminating a common tactic used by asylum seekers and their attorneys: asking courts to independently re-evaluate whether persecution occurred. 

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left's lies, new legislation wasn't needed to secure our border, just a new president.

Help us continue to report the truth about the president's border policies and mass deportations. Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement