Some wins at the USSC!

Two immigration cases came back in favor of the Trump administration!

The first case was about whether or not temporary status for Haitians and Syrians could be terminated. Of course, the idea of temporary is just that, but as it works in so many cases, you give an inch and they take a mile. Lower courts had argued that the Trump administration was being racist by ending the status. The Majority of the Justices not only rejected that concept, but also suggested that this sort of action was not even reviewable by the courts.

None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications. For example, one may oppose TPS and favor tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race. And a person without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable description of living conditions in some of the countries with TPS designations. The criteria for TPS designations guarantee that many, if not most, designated countries have such characteristics.

The second case was in regards to whether or not people trying to enter the United States can be "metered" which is to say that they cannot just enter the country because they made it to an immigration checkpoint.

U.S. immigration officials can turn away asylum seekers at the Mexican border, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. In a 6-3 decision, the justices greenlit a “metering” policy devised under the Obama administration and expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term, under which Customs and Border Protection agents posted on bridges between Mexico and the U.S. turned back many asylum seekers. The high court’s ruling overturned lower-court decisions that found Congress intended to permit any immigrant approaching a border checkpoint to file for asylum.

The interesting part of this is that it was actually started under Obama. Eventually the Biden administration decided to simply accept everyone (rather than limit how many can be processed each day). As it is with many of these district and even appellate courts, they seem to believe that Democratic Presidents can set policy as they choose, while Trump must get permission from the courts to do the same.

Moreover, the the ninth circuit court went so far as to rule that being in Mexico (but near a checkpoint) made you actually in the United States, and that you had to be let into the country even if your request for asylum was rejected. It begs the question, why have asylum hearings if everyone gets in regardless? I guess that is a question that the ninth circuit court will no longer have to answer.