"Once again, the Supreme Court is allowing a controversial Trump administration policy to go into effect even as the legal challenges to the policy proceed through the lower courts", said Vladeck. According to Refugee International, the ruling by the Supreme Court was a blow to the desperate needs of asylum seekers at the southern border. It only allows the rule to stand while the court hears the whole case against it.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others who challenged the administration's policy in federal court said it violates United States immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule.
"It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere - without affording the public a chance to weigh in". Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy.
Tigar's decision prompted three judges on the 9th Circuit to tighten Tigar's order so only Arizona and California would be under its rubric.
That left the administration able to carry out the new restrictions only in Texas and New Mexico. This means almost everyone from Central America, Africa, or anywhere else who went through Mexico to get to the United States can be denied asylum on the spot if they cannot demonstrate they first applied for asylum in Mexico and were denied.
The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that it will continue to challenge the rule. "The life of countless numbers of people are at stake".
Mexicans seeking asylum will not be affected by this rule.
The Supreme Court in November will consider whether the Trump administration acted lawfully when it cancelled an Obama-era program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that provided benefits to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.
But Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren, the head of the judiciary panel's immigration subcommittee, called the court's decision disappointing. "This rule will effect in these fleeing peril and persecution to be modified into away at our doorstep and would possibly maybe maybe flawless exacerbate the humanitarian disaster within the distance", they talked about in a assertion. The administration announced this new rule back in mid-July, but a federal judge in California issued a nationwide injunction against its implementation about 10 days later.
As is common, the court's majority did not provide a reason for lifting the injunction issued by a lower court.
The Trump administration says the policy is created to address deficiencies in an immigration system in which immigrants often pass initial asylum screening but fail to win final approval.