SCOTUS overrules federal judge, lets Trump’s ‘safe 3rd country’ asylum restrictions take effect

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s new asylum rules to take effect, suspending a pair of injunctions by a California federal judge that had tried to block the controversial policy changes.

Under the new rules, migrants would be barred from seeking asylum in the US if they have traveled through a third “safe country” en route to the American border, unless they also applied for asylum in that country.

The court announced on Wednesday evening that it would allow the enforcement of the updated regulations, pending government appeal of two decisions in the 9th Circuit Court. The new policy takes effect nationwide until then.

Trump celebrated the decision on Twitter, praising the “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!”

Unveiled in July, this new policy was blocked from taking effect by US District Judge Jon Tigar in California almost right away. The effect of that injunction was blunted by the 9th Circuit Court ruling restricting it to Arizona and California. Tigar again sought to put a hold on the policy on Monday, but the Supreme Court blocked both his decisions from taking effect until after the government has completed its appeals.

Two Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the ruling.

“Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

The new policy would severely curtail asylum claims by migrants from Central American countries, currently pouring over the US border in large numbers. It would also put an end to the “caravans” of thousands who trek north from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to reach the US, since they must cross through Mexico and – according to the new rule – apply for asylum there in order to be welcomed at the US border.

Last week, Attorney General William Barr condemned nationwide injunctions in an opinion piece, signaling the Trump administration might be preparing to go after the practice before the Supreme Court. Barr argued that the novel practice by federal judges seeking to block lawful executive actions violated the constitutional separation of powers.

About 40 such injunctions have been issued since Trump took office, more than twice as many as during the entire 20th century, he pointed out.

“What have these nationwide injunctions wrought?” Barr asked rhetorically. “The political process has been preempted, and we have had over a year of bitter political division that included a government shutdown of unprecedented length.”

Like this story? Share it with a friend!