9th Circuit Injunctions Overturned By Supreme Court—Asylum Seekers Restrictions To Take Effect

source: Flickr

The Trump administration is sure to be in good spirits and celebrating tonight as the Supreme Court announced an order in their favor.  Late Wednesday evening, a nationwide injunction that had been put in placed was lifted. 

The injunction had blocked the White House’s ban in regards to asylum for anyone found to be trying to cross the border between the US and Mexico, through the process of transiting through a third country.

Having previously been a long-time liberal bastion, that has been aggressively reshaped by the current administration, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the White House a somewhat partial victory on Monday, when they ended the nationwide injunction.  

However, at that time the 9th Circuit ruled to partially uphold the injunction, keeping it alive within the court’s territorial boundaries.  The boundaries included California, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Guam.

Although the most recent ruling is not a final statement on the policy and its merits, it does allow the policy the leeway to take effect on a nationwide basis, including those states within the 9th Circuit, until which time the case is heard and makes it way through necessary lower courts.

In a tweet posted shortly following the ruling, Trump stated that it proved to be a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!"

In a brief submitted by the administration on Tuesday, it was argued that unless the Supreme Court ruled to lift the nationwide injunction, it "would severely disrupt the orderly administration of an already overburdened asylum system.”

The vote, however, was not unanimous, as both Sotomayor and Bader Ginsburg dissented.

On Monday, Tigar had issued a new ruling, that proved to in fact impose a hold, nationwide, on the asylum policy.  In the document containing his decision, Tigar felt a need to stress a “need to maintain uniform immigration policy.” 

He went on to state that many of the organizations that aid asylum seekers in their entry into the US do not have pertinent information such as where those individuals will end up living.  Without this information, it is also unknown as to where the asylum seekers will be making their case to remain.

When the ruling on the nationwide injunction first came down, Trump said he disagreed with the idea that federal judges could singularly issue such rulings—a practice that has more than been exploded during this administration.

So, what’s the verdict—you decide.

Is the lifting of the injunction the first step to changing laws for asylum seekers in the US?

Make sure to click agree/disagree and made your opinion heard.