Judge bars US from enforcing Trump administration’s asylum ban

Fox News ^ | November 20, 2018 | Edward DeMarche

[zeugma]

At some point these kind of rulings will reach a point that is so absurd and odious they need to be defied.

I think there is a real possibility that the Supreme Court will slap these partisan judges down sometime this year. Thomas wrote a blistering dissent of a per curium decision last year questioning the power of lower court judges to make the sweeping judgements as they have been doing of late.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes this is too important. It MUST be decided at SCOTUS.

[be-baw]

” no one has said what section of the United States Code requires that asylum seekers must be accepted no matter where they cross.”

Yeah, I’m waiting to see that too. Sounds like a job for Judge Napolitano.

[KarlInOhio]

I finally found a link on another thread. My post there was:

Finally an article which links to the actual decision. The judge cited 8 USC 1158(a)(1):

(a)Authority to apply for asylum

(1)In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

Unless there is something else in the law that overrides this, and I hate to say it, it looks like the judge is right. ugh.

[be-baw]

Thanks for the info. That looks good to me, but I’m no lawyer . Nevertheless the language is specific so, if it goes to SCOTUS, I’d bet that the Supremes won’t overrule it.

[zeugma]

The whole lower court judicial activism needs to be addressed by the congress. Pass legislation limiting thier rulings to their districts. This will setup a show down in the USSC.

Justice Thomas penned a strong dissent this past term in which he questioned the legitimacy of some of the over-reaching opinions of lower courts. I've been trying to find it in my notes here, but can't seem to dig it up unfortunately. However, given the personnel change on the court, he might be able to get the court to rule on exactly that. I'm sure there will be opportunities this term. Plenty most likely.

[zeugma]

I found the case I was trying to remember.

Here's the relevant bit from Justice Thomas' concurrence in the Trump vs. Hawaii immigration case...

Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.1 District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.

I'd look for Thomas to find a case this term to challenge this concept of "universal injunctions".

[shotgun]

We can always hope...