Mayhem Engulfs 'Bite of Seattle' Festival As Mass Shooting Leaves Two Dead, Five...
Oh, You Knew Someone Was Going to Say That About the Terror Attack...
The WNBA Only Exists Because of 'Exclusion'
Since This Is the Issue Anyway
Hate Trumps It All
11 Charged in Smuggling Scheme That Left Seven Dead
Washington Resident Admits Conspiring to Support ISIS
Democrats Mortgage Headquarters for $15 Million to Bail Out of Their Financial Fiasco
Jury Convicts Boca Raton Man in $3 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme
Berlin Pride Attack Suspect Shot Dead by Police After Manhunt
Democratic Socialists' Co-Chair Admits Platform Includes Open Borders, Amnesty for Illegal...
Berlin Pride Attack: Suspect Named As Islamist With Prior Terror Ties
New Poll Shows That More Than Half of Democrats Support Socialism
The Left Is Going All in to Take Out One of America's Favorite...
The Bible and America’s Presidents
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Slaps Down a Federal Judge on Deportations, but There's Another Issue

Supreme Court Slaps Down a Federal Judge on Deportations, but There's Another Issue
AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File

It wasn’t the biggest news over the Independence Day holiday since we got the reconciliation package through Congress. President Trump signed his signature domestic achievement on the Fourth of July, which cut taxes, booted illegal aliens off welfare programs, and fully funded our immigration enforcement measures, specifically giving a windfall to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Advertisement

Yet, there was another significant win: the Supreme Court rebuked a lower court judge who thought he was the federal government and the ultimate authority on immigration policy. Judge Brian Murphy’s attempts to stop the deportation of illegals to Sudan failed, as the Court stepped in to slap him down (via SCOTUSBlog): 

The Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to send a group of immigrants currently being held on a U.S. military base in the east African country of Djibouti to South Sudan. In a brief opinion, the justices made clear that their June 23 order, which paused an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts limiting the government’s ability to deport immigrants to countries that are not specifically identified in their removal orders, applies fully to the eight immigrants in U.S. custody in Djibouti.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that Thursday’s order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.” 

The order came less than two weeks after the Supreme Court put on hold, at least for now, an April 18 order by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that prohibited the federal government from sending immigrants to “third countries” – that is, countries not explicitly listed in their removal orders – without first following a series of steps to help ensure that the immigrant would not be tortured if deported to those countries. 

The dispute at the center of Thursday’s opinion by the justices stems from an order that Murphy issued on May 21, when he concluded that the federal government had violated his April 18 order when it tried to deport eight men to South Sudan – a country from which the U.S. government has evacuated all non-emergency personnel, and for which the State Department has issued an advisory recommending against travel to the country because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.” 

The plane carrying the immigrants that was headed to South Sudan landed instead in nearby Djibouti, where the men have been held at a U.S. military base. 

The Trump administration went to the Supreme Court on May 27, asking the justices to pause Murphy’s April 18 order and allow it to carry out “third country” removals while litigation over the practice continues. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that Murphy’s “judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process” and “disrupt[ing] sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts.” 

Advertisement

But there’s another issue, and yes, it relates to another lower court judge. Mr. Rudolph decided to intervene in the Trump administration’s revisions to asylum laws. He issued the order on July 2 (via NYT):

A federal judge in Washington ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration cannot categorically deny asylum claims from people crossing the southern border, striking down a change made on President Trump’s first day in office. 

The ruling rejected the idea, repeatedly put forth by the president, that such extraordinary powers were justified to curtail what Mr. Trump has called an invasion of the United States by immigrants crossing the southern border. 

In a hefty 128-page opinion, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that the Constitution and federal immigration law did not afford Mr. Trump the expansive authorities he claimed. 

“The court recognizes that the executive branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” he wrote.  

Advertisement

The lawfare never ends.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement