Subheadline: "The Trump administration had asked the court to allow it to end deportation protections for more than 500,000 people facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries."
The court’s order was unsigned and provided no reasoning, which is typical when the justices rule on emergency applications. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, saying the majority had not given enough consideration to “the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”...
In an emergency application to the Supreme Court on May 8, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that... the lower court had “needlessly” upended “critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry” and had undone “democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election,” Mr. Sauer argued.
ADDED: "Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented..." Not only didn't the Chief Justice join the dissenters, Justice Kagan went with the majority. The middle has spoken. I'm picturing many Trump victories to come in these "injunctivitis" cases.
AND: Here's Jackson's opinion. Excerpt:
With the stakes as high as they are in this case, measured in terms of real harm to real people, one might reasonably expect the Government to step up to equity’s scale with a mountain of harm-related arguments, bolstered by evidence. The Government bears the burden of showing why it, or the public, will be irreparably injured should it be prevented from exercising its policy preferences now—i.e., while the lawfulness of this agency action is being litigated.
Posts
66 comments:
Hawaiian judges get it wrong. Quelle suprise..
If you came in illegally - you need to leave.
We cannot sustain the "but it's mean!" Bs.
It was cruel to let them in, in the first place.
allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens
Oh, come on - that one is too easy. All together now: what about the lives and livelihoods of the citizens?
...the usual mumpsimuses conspicuously fail to make an appearance in 3..2...
Who will think of all of the people getting rich exploiting the race to the bottom that flooding the labor market with millions of workers creates!
500,000 down, 14,500,000 to go.
...it was irresponsible to allow the Biden government cabal to to upend the lives and livelihoods of citizens in other nations to come to America enticed by money and privileges...
Remember - ALL The drugs and human trafficking - and sexual abuse of children - the left DO NOT CARE.
All the corrupt democratic left care about is getting illegals on the tax payer dole and importing a slave class who will dutifully vote for the D.
I'd argue that Jackson and Sotomayer haven't given consideration to the devastating consequences of just allowing 500,000 people to enter the country without permission and then deciding they can stay because they gave a sob story. We should have clear policies, established in advance, for which countries we would allow people to use any means to enter our country and be allowed to stay. For instance, we had such policies for Cuba, but then a President decided that one such person should be forced to return, and by force, I mean at the point of a gun.
It's tragic that Biden let them in with a false promise they could stay. It's tragic that they risked a lot to come here on that promise. It's a fucking tragedy. I don't need SCOTUS as the nation's therapist, though. Rule on the law, not the feelz.
BOOM!
The Judicial branch is so called for using its opponents' weight against them.
If I were living without permission of the government, or even with the "implied" tolerance of the government, in France, or Turkey, or Bolivia, I would be doing so with the understanding that if the governments of those countries told me to leave, I would have to leave. You play the game and you take your chances.
I think Kagan has split from the liberal wing on a couple of Trump cases. Hmmm.
Jackson and Sotomayor's dissent sounds a lot like "we would have done it differently if we were president." This is exactly the kind of judgment call the court should stay out of.
Bipartisan! And "nearly unanimous".
Glenn Loury and John McWhorter recently hinted around that Jackson isn't very smart, as something you can easily deduce.
"For Now"
Until someone can get to Roberts - and threaten him?
We are venturing into "A switch in time, saves nine" territory. I know the tendency among SC moderates is to gauge the temperature of the country based on the DC area but maybe, just maybe, they are starting to get a hint of the national mood.
"for now" is the new "without evidence".
..."Supreme Court allows...."
No. Wrong. Supreme Court rules on the existing law.
"I'm picturing many Trump victories to come in these "injunctivitis" cases."
Only until a district court judge issues an injunction against SCOTUS. Am I joking or not?
The Supreme Court also unanimously struck down a DC Court ruling preventing counties in Utah from building a railroad that had federal approval.
just to be Clear..
a) Joe Biden's autopen signs an Executive Decision that ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH are entitled to american welfare benefits..
b) the american people OVERWHELMINGLY vote Joe Biden's democrat party out of office..
c) the New President signs (in INK) a new Executive Decision ending Joe's..
d) a District Judge says that "a (republican) President can NOT overturn a decision made by a (democrat) autopen..
e) a bare majority of the Supreme Court says: that a President can do that.. FOR NOW.. But ONLY for now.
Thank you Supreme Court, for finally enforcing immigration laws. No do it again. And again. Until all these entitlement-dependent folks are sent back to their home-countries.
And to quote Megyn Kelly, in reference to Tapper's Biden book: "IT'S NOT MEAN WHEN IT'S TRUE. Amen.
Equity’s scale? Who or what is that? As for the mountain of harm, that evidence was presented to voters during the election and again at a joint session of Congress. Americans are being raped and murdered by unvetted immigrants that entered our country and were allowed to stay by the previous administration. They shouldn’t be given protection for violating multiple crimes simply because they claim injury to themselves.
In our small WIsconsin city, the progressive-democrat ladies are all upset about Bad Trump, while our city hall spends $400,000,000 on city subsidies for out-of-town residential multi-family and subdivision developers, for new housing construction for recently-arriving newcomers to our community. Meanwhile, the city streets are potholed, the public sidewalks heaving, the library hours cut, the Memorial Day flags eliminated, the homeless population has tripled, and there's an express bus from Chicago to our downtown bus station delivering new entitlements-dependent folks everyday. Oh but our contingent of AWFLs are at the street corners on weekends, loudly protesting Trump's mean policies regarding undocumented migrants, because you know national politics matters the most.
Kate said..."It's tragic that Biden let them in with a false promise they could stay. It's tragic that they risked a lot to come here on that promise. It's a fucking tragedy."
It is a tragedy and I feel for them. And I know exactly who to blame for it, and it's not the guy trying to do right by the citizens of this country. The democrat program to import a whole new voter class for themselves is reprehensible. They purposefully set out to overwhelm the system, all on the backs of the migrants they unlawfully let in. And I fear they will succeed, no matter the court rulings. The numbers are crushing.
Any court ruling that includes the (unwritten) - But It's TRUMP!!!!! - rational is more than suspect.
"Not only didn't the Chief Justice join the dissenters, Justice Kagan went with the majority"
a serious question, for SC watchers ('cause i Truly DON'T Know).
Has Chief Justice Roberts EVER joined the dissenters?
EVER?
or, does he ALWAYS go with the majority?
NOTE:
i'm NOT asking if he joins with 4 liberals.. that would make 5 with him (thus.. The Majority)
I'm ASKING If, Roberts has EVER been on the dissent side?
I'm guessing NO.. I'm guessing that Roberts ALWAYS votes for the winning side.
Can anyone point to a case where Roberts wasn't on the side that won? thanx!
DEI Justices rule using DEI logic, as that's the only way they've ever functioned throughout their lives. There was loads of sympathy about the plight of Black and Brown women when the Democrats selected these two for the court. Kagan, of Russian Jewish ancestry, might have been ejected from team Black and Brown after Gaza 2023. Is the Court mirroring the college campus atmosphere?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And so grows the Trump centrist coalition.
Yay - Middle America wins one.
Middle America wins one ... for now.
This is the NY Times waving its middle finger at precedent and pointing out that as soon as a Democrat court is in power, this ruling will be reversed on policy grounds.
Not legal grounds, mind you.
"Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration, for Now, to End Biden-Era Migrant Program."
Allows? ALLOWS? The Supreme Court allows?!?!!
Who the fuck elected them?
Courts shouldn't invoke the "harm" resulting from executive policy decisions as the basis for injunctions. Policy choices invariably involve tradeoffs: some people or groups benefit from a given policy choice while others are harmed. Therefore, there will always be some potential plaintiff who can claim "irreparable" harm; and if that person belongs to a group that Trump has railed against in a speech or a tweet, the plaintiff can also claim that his right of free speech or association is being threatened because the policy goal is to punish that group for its "beliefs." Lawfare specialists have shown that can make the injunction analysis work in a technical sense, but it's obviously an affront to our constitutional order. The judicial branch was never intended to have overall supervisory authority over a president's policy decisions.
it's amazing how Democrat presidents can just decide on a whim to let millions in, but if a Republican president tries to send them back, there's endless process required and judges have to sign off.
I thought this particular group were supposed to allowed in for just 2 years and they expired last fall. Am I recalling that incorrectly?
“Subheadline: "The Trump administration had asked the court to allow it to end deportation protections for more than 500,000 people facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries.”
Really hate this formulation - “Trump administration had asked the court to allow it”…. Does SCOTUS really want to own everything that comes to pass with all these cases if they don’t shut down these District Court shenanigans? What a waste of time and angst.
Elias may be slowing the roll, but I don’t think us citizens that are benefiting from the current economy, security, market, etc trajectories, are going to accept backtracking on these issues again.
“allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens”
The people were allowed to stay to keep them from injury back home at that time. When the executive determines that that risk no longer exists, they can go back home and be grateful that the US saved them from harm. But no, they demand more.
If the US is responsible for keeping them here why are they now better than every other poor person in the world? It would be better for the US to decide how many trillions of taxpayer money we are going to devote to the poor of the world and send them all an equal check where they are. At least that would be fair.
How can democrats berate republicans for the deficit when courts require open ended spending in their rulings? There is no budget that is allowed to be enforced. A court will never say, ok no more money for immigrants, you are tapped out.
Could it be, that the Supreme Court justices are bringing to feel a little pressure? Perhaps they need to back track before they are pushed off into irrelevance.
I like the analogy of illegal aliens to someone breaking into your home, and demanding a bedroom. Due process or just get the hell out?
I feel different about illegals that have been here and acted lawfully in other ways, like working, paying taxes and staying off welfare for decades. That's more like someone you let live with you for years, and who helped around the house, bought groceries, and baby sit your kids without a peep from you.
"Equity’s scale? Who or what is that?"
It's some legal-schmegal crap. When a judge doesn't like the effect of doing what the law says he is supposed to do, he can set aside considerations of legality and consider the question of "equity". Essentially, it is a fig-leaf for judicial activism, with some historical mumbo-jumbo to justify it.
"That's more like someone you let live with you for years, and who helped around the house, bought groceries, and baby sit your kids without a peep from you."
Yeah, good for you. Virtue signaled. So are you gonna put him in your will? Or do you just want to put him in my will?
This isn't about being nice to people. There are at least five billion people who would like to come live here. I suppose that once we let the first two billion in, the remaining three billion might lose interest, due to the fact that the USA has become a shithole. Is that the plan?
"President can NOT overturn a decision made by a (democrat) autopen."
Autopenarchy
Autopentarianism
Disctatorship of the autopentariat
Autopenocracy
And my favorite, Autopenite
Autopenile implantation
allow it to end deportation protections for more than 500,000 people facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries
No Chik-fil-A…
It’s already after 1pm on the US east coast and no judge has overruled the supremes by attacking Trump from a different angle? They’re slipping…
As I understand it, what is happening is the Trump administration has sought to end a Biden executive order that established the "parole" immigration program under which immigrants fleeing economic and political turmoil in their home countries were given temporary status to work and live in the US for two years, based on date of entry for each particular individual.
The particular parole program at issue, which effectively applied to anyone from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela who made it into the country, was implemented by the Biden administration on January 6, 2023, so for a number of entrants, the parole has already expired.
The Trump administration ran on eliminating this program (and generally cutting back on immigration of this sort). It announced an end to the program on March 25, 2025.
The program was (allegedly) authorized by the Immigration and Nationalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), which states "[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security may . . . in his discretion parole into the United
States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien
applying for admission to the United States..." and "when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien
shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled..." (emphasis added). The Biden administration set up the program for Venezuelans with a cap of 24,000, and later set up the program for Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans. In October 2024 (in other words, under the Biden administration), DHS announced that it would not offer "re-parole" to anyone here on that program.
beneficiaries.
The Trump administration took the (eminently reasonable) position that the language in bold above prohibited the grant of parole to "make aliens presumptively eligible on the basis of some set of broadly applicable criteria" such as nation of origin, and instead that the grant of parole must be made person-by-person. (The fact that 500,000 people are subject to deportation on a program that had a much smaller cap underscores the fact, as found by the current DHS, that parole was granted to large swaths of people not on a case-by-case basis but solely based on their country of origin).
Somehow, a Massachusetts Judge found that the language regarding the Director of Homeland Security to end parole solely at his discretion applies only if he does so on a case-by-case basis, but does not apply to the previous Director's decision to let anyone and everyone from the subject countries be given the parole, despite the "case-by-case" language appearing only at the grant portion of the statute. The Judge's reading of the law is, to put it kindly, questionable.
Further, the present Administration enacted this change of policy and implemented it. The petitioners are the ones who sought the preliminary injunction staying its application, and as such, it is the petitioners who bear the burden of showing the elements necessary for a preliminary injunction - likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm,, and the balance of hardships and effect on the public should the injunction not be granted. "Justice" Jackson had it completely backwards in her dissent in placing that burden on the government.
Things I wonder about:
How many of those 500,000 people actually are facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries?
How many of those 500,000 people would the courts say are facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries?
“I'd argue that Jackson and Sotomayer haven't given consideration to the devastating consequences of just allowing 500,000 people to enter the country without permission and then deciding they can stay because they gave a sob story.”
And keep in mind that many of these people were taught exactly what to say in their sob stories, by NGOs, often primarily funded by the USG (many through USAID).
I wouldn't put much stock in Kagan not joining the far-left opinion that a District court can stop all deportations till the issue is resolved. Usually Kagan votes with the Leftwing Bloc. No doubt she's decided it looks bad if on every single Goddamn vote she's voting with the other 2 leftists. So, why not stay silent on this one, since it doesn't matter.
But when the chips are down, she will vote with the other 3 democrat judges.
Wow, what a great victory. So, a single one of the 700 unelected district judges can't stop the POTUS from doing his job enforcing the laws until the judges decide the case. Well, thank God for that.
To those not paying attention. Once a district court issues an injuction it stays in place until its overturned by the Appeals judge or SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS doesn't overturn it, there's nothing to stop the Far-left judges from dragging the case our for months or years. Its in effect an executive order trumping the POTUS' executive order.
Crazy. But that's the 'murican way!
The case law here is absolutely clear. Biden created a program as president. Trump can end it as president.
This is black and white. Brown and Sotomayor should be impeached for this obvious partisan hack behavior.
They are not Judges by any reasonable definition of that word.
WisRich said...
I think Kagan has split from the liberal wing on a couple of Trump cases. Hmmm.
These cases are so clear and obvious what the result should be on the merits that Kagan sees no way out.
These issues are so obviously Article II that the court just risks being ignored or dissolved if it continues to try to usurp the executive branch authority in these cases.
Kagan isn't as stupid as Sotomayor and Jackson, though she is craven. Remember, she helped Bill Clinton with his cover-ups and also with Holder to stir up racial animosity.
otoh, I know the law is the law, on the other, I feel for those who will sent to those (redacted) countries, where there is no hope of recovery any time soon,
Things I wonder about:
How many of those 500,000 people actually are facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries?
How many of those 500,000 people would the courts say are facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries?
Ironically, despite the statute calling for individualized, case-by-case determinations, the judge certified the whole 500k as a class and determined the harm the whole 500k would suffer based on affidavits relating to only seven "named" defendants (they were all John or Jane Does, but with ethnic first names - Armando Doe, Ana Doe, etc.). Of the seven (which make up only 0.0014% of the class), three are related (married couple and their cousin); one ("Lucia Doe") whose sole reason for being here on parole is that her chosen field of work (Christian education) doesn't pay very well in Venezuela and (she asserts) she will have difficulty finding employment due to her being older than 40; another Nicaraguan who appears to be yet another relative of the married couple, but the Judge appears to have misnamed who that relative is (substituting another common ethnic name starting with "A") and who had trouble finishing college in Nicaragua due tot he COVID pandemic (but only came here in fall of 2024, long after the pandemic ended) and who "fears that the Nicaraguan government will assume he opposes it if he returns as a deportee and recipient of parole;" and a Haitian who claims that he was followed by a motorcycle gang and fears gang violence.
Seem like a valid basis to enjoin the revocations of parole for 500k people to you?
Biden broke the system, so Democrats can't have the "nice things" they wanted.
"For now" could be the new theme of the Trump resistance. Much catchier than "Not my president" - so 2017
When "dire humanitarian crisis" means poverty, sorry, that is not a crisis, it is is the standard situation of the vast majority of humanity since we walked upright.
The key word in even Jackson's dissent is "noncitizens" - that's the end of the argument to be honest.
With the stakes as high as they are in this case, measured in terms of real harm to real people, one might reasonably expect the Government to step up to equity’s scale with a mountain of harm-related arguments, bolstered by evidence. The Government bears the burden of showing why it, or the public, will be irreparably injured should it be prevented from exercising its policy preferences now—i.e., while the lawfulness of this agency action is being litigated.
What a worthless ass.
As it is amazingly obvious that the actions ARE lawful, the fact that some pinhead is "litigating" them doesn't matter. It was an abuse of discretion for the DC judge to issue the PI, and SCOTUS is properly striking it down.
And no, it's nOT up to the Administration to make the case that the Government and the public will "be irreparably injured should it be prevented from exercising its policy preferences now", because that is the basic, foundational point of representative democracy: that the elected, NOT the unelected, get their way within the law.
Not understanding it is grounds for impeachment
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.