Loading...

Supreme Court to Take Up ‘Remain in Mexico’ and Border Wall Cases

October 19, 2020 by Dan McCue
Supreme Court to Take Up ‘Remain in Mexico’ and Border Wall Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up two cases arising from President Donald Trump’s efforts to slow both legal and illegal immigration from Mexico.

Monday’s announcement followed an order late Friday in which the high court said it will fast-track the appeal in a case challenging the administration’s plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the Census count used to allocate seats in Congress.

The justices granted review to a case challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to send asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await an asylum hearing in a U.S. immigration court.

They also said they will hear a case involving the long-running dispute over the funding of President Trump’s border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The underlying asylum case stems from President Trump’s decision to impose its “remain in Mexico” policy in December 2018.

Lower courts blocked the White House from implementing the policy, but in March 2020, a majority of the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration request to allow the policy to be enforced pending appeal.

In its petition for review, the administration asked the justices to void a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the policy is inconsistent with both federal law and the doctrine of international law barring the return of asylum seekers to countries where they may be in danger.

It also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the lower court overreached when it handed down a nationwide injunction covering regions of the country and even its own state, that are normally outside its jurisdiction.

The petition went on to note that since the Supreme Court allowed the policy to go into effect last Spring, it has prevented more than 60,000 people from being released into the United States while awaiting their asylum hearing.

The border wall case is something of a repeater for the high court.

In July 2019, the court voted 5-4 to allow the Trump administration to continue spending federal money on the project while a legal challenge filed by the Sierra Club continued through the courts.

Earlier this year, the justices turned down a request to impose a temporary pause on construction, rejecting an argument that the wall could be finished before the lawsuit’s conclusion.

The Sierra Club and co-litigant, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, argue the White House lacks authority to spend more on the wall than Congress had already allocated for border security.

They specifically argue President Trump should not be allowed to use $2.5 billion originally allocated to the Defense Department. A lower court blocked the use of those funds for the border wall, and the 9th Circuit turned down a request to put the ruling on hold.

That’s when the Supreme Court intervened for the first time in the case.

On Friday evening the justices agreed to take up the question of whether President Trump can exclude people living in the U.S. illegally from the census count that will be used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives.

In September, a three-judge federal court panel held that the policy is illegal and went on to note that never in U.S. history have immigrants been excluded from the population count that determines how congressional districts — and by extension — Electoral College votes — are divided among the states.

The justices are scheduled to hear the case on Nov. 30, with a decision expected by the end of the year or early in January, when the president has to report census numbers to the House.

There is a possibility that the two cases the Supreme Court took on today may never get heard. Neither case is likely to be scheduled for oral argument until late February 2021. If former Vice President Joe Biden is elected president, he may well have reversed course on both programs, rendering the cases moot.

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

January 19, 2023
by Dan McCue
Capitol Police Announce Road Closures Ahead of ‘March for Life’

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Capitol Police have announced Capitol Complex road closures to accommodate the annual “March for Life” on... Read More

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Capitol Police have announced Capitol Complex road closures to accommodate the annual “March for Life” on the National Mall. Thousands of anti-abortion activists and marchers are expected to converge on the National Mall Thursday and Friday for a series of events. This... Read More

January 19, 2023
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Investigation Hasn’t Turned Up Abortion Ruling Leaker

WASHINGTON — A monthslong internal investigation has failed to identify the person who leaked a draft copy of the Dobbs... Read More

WASHINGTON — A monthslong internal investigation has failed to identify the person who leaked a draft copy of the Dobbs ruling to Politico last year, the Supreme Court announced Thursday. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is the landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in... Read More

Supreme Court Lets New York Enforce Gun Law During Lawsuit

WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” such... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” such as schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned... Read More

Supreme Court Asked to Bar Punishment for Acquitted Conduct

WASHINGTON (AP) — A jury convicted Dayonta McClinton of robbing a CVS pharmacy but acquitted him of murder. A judge... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — A jury convicted Dayonta McClinton of robbing a CVS pharmacy but acquitted him of murder. A judge gave McClinton an extra 13 years in prison for the killing anyway. In courtrooms across America, defendants get additional prison time for crimes that juries found... Read More

December 28, 2022
by Dan McCue
Justices Hold Title 42 to Remain in Place Pending Expedited Review

WASHINGTON —  A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Title 42, the pandemic-era rule that restricted migration at the... Read More

WASHINGTON —  A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Title 42, the pandemic-era rule that restricted migration at the southwestern border on public health grounds, will remain in place pending an expedited ruling and future ruling by the justices. In a brief, unsigned order, a... Read More

December 8, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Minister Says He Successfully Lobbied Supreme Court Justices for His Causes

WASHINGTON — An evangelical minister who on Thursday claimed to be a whistleblower on conflicts of interest at the Supreme... Read More

WASHINGTON — An evangelical minister who on Thursday claimed to be a whistleblower on conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court told Congress that for years he recruited “stealth missionaries” to advocate conservative causes to the justices. The wealthy couples Robert L. Schenck said he used... Read More

News From The Well