Immigrants wait to eat at a temporary migrant shelter set up near the U.S.-Mexico border on November 18, 2018. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
Sep 12, 2019
The right-wing Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's near-total ban on Central American asylum-seekers can take effect as it faces legal challenges, a move immigrant rights groups decried as cruel, unlawful, and potentially deadly.
The high court's unsigned order overturned a federal court injunction from July that stopped implementation of the restrictions, which the ACLU and other organizations have said are clearly illegal.
"The Supreme Court has stayed the lower court injunction of asylum ban 2.0, a slapdash, ill-conceived, patently illegal policy that will essentially put asylum out of reach for all but Mexican nationals," Charanya Krishnaswami, Americas advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, said on Wednesday. "Lives will be lost while the case churns through the courts."
As the New York Timesreported, the Supreme Court's ruling will allow the Trump administration to "enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country."
"The court's order was a major victory for the administration," the Times noted, "allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation's southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others."
\u201cThe Supreme Court is giving a green light to this Administration to continue its inhumane treatment of vulnerable people. https://t.co/6Hd6UKZXRp\u201d— Raul M. Grijalva (@Raul M. Grijalva) 1568252982
\u201cSCOTUS allowed Trump\u2019s cruel and unlawful asylum ban to proceed. This means:\n\nEveryone at our border, except Mexican nationals, will be barred from safety.\n\nFamilies, children, and vulnerable individuals will be sent back to danger.\n\nThe border will become an asylum-free zone.\u201d— Amnesty International USA (@Amnesty International USA) 1568254388
While no vote was recorded on the asylum ruling, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voiced opposition to the decision.
"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. "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."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, which is challenging the Trump administration's asylum ban, said the Supreme Court's ruling "is just a temporary step" and expressed hope that "we'll prevail at the end of the day."
"The lives of thousands of families are at stake," said Gelernt.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The right-wing Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's near-total ban on Central American asylum-seekers can take effect as it faces legal challenges, a move immigrant rights groups decried as cruel, unlawful, and potentially deadly.
The high court's unsigned order overturned a federal court injunction from July that stopped implementation of the restrictions, which the ACLU and other organizations have said are clearly illegal.
"The Supreme Court has stayed the lower court injunction of asylum ban 2.0, a slapdash, ill-conceived, patently illegal policy that will essentially put asylum out of reach for all but Mexican nationals," Charanya Krishnaswami, Americas advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, said on Wednesday. "Lives will be lost while the case churns through the courts."
As the New York Timesreported, the Supreme Court's ruling will allow the Trump administration to "enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country."
"The court's order was a major victory for the administration," the Times noted, "allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation's southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others."
\u201cThe Supreme Court is giving a green light to this Administration to continue its inhumane treatment of vulnerable people. https://t.co/6Hd6UKZXRp\u201d— Raul M. Grijalva (@Raul M. Grijalva) 1568252982
\u201cSCOTUS allowed Trump\u2019s cruel and unlawful asylum ban to proceed. This means:\n\nEveryone at our border, except Mexican nationals, will be barred from safety.\n\nFamilies, children, and vulnerable individuals will be sent back to danger.\n\nThe border will become an asylum-free zone.\u201d— Amnesty International USA (@Amnesty International USA) 1568254388
While no vote was recorded on the asylum ruling, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voiced opposition to the decision.
"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. "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."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, which is challenging the Trump administration's asylum ban, said the Supreme Court's ruling "is just a temporary step" and expressed hope that "we'll prevail at the end of the day."
"The lives of thousands of families are at stake," said Gelernt.
The right-wing Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's near-total ban on Central American asylum-seekers can take effect as it faces legal challenges, a move immigrant rights groups decried as cruel, unlawful, and potentially deadly.
The high court's unsigned order overturned a federal court injunction from July that stopped implementation of the restrictions, which the ACLU and other organizations have said are clearly illegal.
"The Supreme Court has stayed the lower court injunction of asylum ban 2.0, a slapdash, ill-conceived, patently illegal policy that will essentially put asylum out of reach for all but Mexican nationals," Charanya Krishnaswami, Americas advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, said on Wednesday. "Lives will be lost while the case churns through the courts."
As the New York Timesreported, the Supreme Court's ruling will allow the Trump administration to "enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country."
"The court's order was a major victory for the administration," the Times noted, "allowing it to enforce a policy that will achieve one of its central goals: effectively barring most migration across the nation's southwestern border by Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others."
\u201cThe Supreme Court is giving a green light to this Administration to continue its inhumane treatment of vulnerable people. https://t.co/6Hd6UKZXRp\u201d— Raul M. Grijalva (@Raul M. Grijalva) 1568252982
\u201cSCOTUS allowed Trump\u2019s cruel and unlawful asylum ban to proceed. This means:\n\nEveryone at our border, except Mexican nationals, will be barred from safety.\n\nFamilies, children, and vulnerable individuals will be sent back to danger.\n\nThe border will become an asylum-free zone.\u201d— Amnesty International USA (@Amnesty International USA) 1568254388
While no vote was recorded on the asylum ruling, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voiced opposition to the decision.
"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. "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."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, which is challenging the Trump administration's asylum ban, said the Supreme Court's ruling "is just a temporary step" and expressed hope that "we'll prevail at the end of the day."
"The lives of thousands of families are at stake," said Gelernt.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.