"Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect." (Photo: PJMixer / Flickr)
Outcry After Supreme Court Stay Reinstates 'Depraved' Trump Administration Remain in Mexico Policy
"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated President Donald Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policye, drawing condemnation from the ACLU, which warned of the consequences of the policy's continued use.
The reinstatement is the result of the high court issuing a stay on a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals halting the policy.
"The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal," the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project's special counsel Judy Rabinovitz said in a statement. "The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect."
The ruling was nearly unanimous with only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. No reason was given for the ruling or dissent in the brief.
As the New York Times reported, the stay is part of a developing pattern for the White House:
The Supreme Court has recently reversed several injunctions issued by lower courts blocking aspects of the administration's tough new immigration policies. In a pair of recent decisions, for instance, the court lifted injunctions that had blocked the administration's plans to deny green cards to immigrants who were thought to be likely to become "public charges" by even the occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
Sotomayor, the Times noted, referenced the impulse of the administration to run to the court when faced with rulings the White House doesn't care for in a dissent from the "public charge" dispute in February.
"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention, and consuming limited court resources in each," wrote Sotomayor. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated President Donald Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policye, drawing condemnation from the ACLU, which warned of the consequences of the policy's continued use.
The reinstatement is the result of the high court issuing a stay on a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals halting the policy.
"The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal," the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project's special counsel Judy Rabinovitz said in a statement. "The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect."
The ruling was nearly unanimous with only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. No reason was given for the ruling or dissent in the brief.
As the New York Times reported, the stay is part of a developing pattern for the White House:
The Supreme Court has recently reversed several injunctions issued by lower courts blocking aspects of the administration's tough new immigration policies. In a pair of recent decisions, for instance, the court lifted injunctions that had blocked the administration's plans to deny green cards to immigrants who were thought to be likely to become "public charges" by even the occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
Sotomayor, the Times noted, referenced the impulse of the administration to run to the court when faced with rulings the White House doesn't care for in a dissent from the "public charge" dispute in February.
"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention, and consuming limited court resources in each," wrote Sotomayor. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated President Donald Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policye, drawing condemnation from the ACLU, which warned of the consequences of the policy's continued use.
The reinstatement is the result of the high court issuing a stay on a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals halting the policy.
"The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal," the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project's special counsel Judy Rabinovitz said in a statement. "The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect."
The ruling was nearly unanimous with only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. No reason was given for the ruling or dissent in the brief.
As the New York Times reported, the stay is part of a developing pattern for the White House:
The Supreme Court has recently reversed several injunctions issued by lower courts blocking aspects of the administration's tough new immigration policies. In a pair of recent decisions, for instance, the court lifted injunctions that had blocked the administration's plans to deny green cards to immigrants who were thought to be likely to become "public charges" by even the occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
Sotomayor, the Times noted, referenced the impulse of the administration to run to the court when faced with rulings the White House doesn't care for in a dissent from the "public charge" dispute in February.
"Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention, and consuming limited court resources in each," wrote Sotomayor. "And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow."