SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"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."
Mar 11, 2020
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."
\u201cBREAKING: The Supreme Court has allowed Trump's forced Return to Mexico policy to remain in effect while our case proceeds.\n\u00a0\nThe Court of Appeals declared it illegal and SCOTUS should as well.\n\nAsylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day from this policy.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1583951240
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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."
\u201cBREAKING: The Supreme Court has allowed Trump's forced Return to Mexico policy to remain in effect while our case proceeds.\n\u00a0\nThe Court of Appeals declared it illegal and SCOTUS should as well.\n\nAsylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day from this policy.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1583951240
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."
\u201cBREAKING: The Supreme Court has allowed Trump's forced Return to Mexico policy to remain in effect while our case proceeds.\n\u00a0\nThe Court of Appeals declared it illegal and SCOTUS should as well.\n\nAsylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day from this policy.\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1583951240
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."
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.