The Department of Homeland Security is asking the Supreme Court to revive President Donald Trump’s restrictions on illegal border crossings and asylum claims, arguing that a lower-court ruling improperly curtailed presidential authority under federal immigration law.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to restore a blocked immigration policy that suspended entry for people crossing the southern border illegally and sharply restricted their ability to seek asylum in the United States.
In a petition filed Aug. 24, the Department of Homeland Security asked the justices to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that invalidated part of President Donald Trump’s Proclamation 10888.
The proclamation, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” was designed to suspend entry into the United States for individuals crossing the southern border illegally while largely preventing those individuals from pursuing asylum claims.
The administration maintains that the president possesses authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend such entries and argues that lower courts interpreted federal law too narrowly when they concluded that part of the proclamation violated the statute.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that allowing the appellate ruling to stand would substantially undermine the administration’s border enforcement framework.
According to the petition, the D.C. Circuit decision “threatens to dismantle” the proclamation.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has described the policy as an “‘indispensable’ tool for controlling the border,” according to the filing.
The administration also pointed to sharply lower border encounters since the proclamation was implemented as evidence of its importance to current enforcement efforts.
Since the policy took effect, “border encounters have fallen by 93 percent, dropping to the lowest levels since the 1960s,” the petition states.
The government specifically argued that restrictions on asylum applications have been essential to preserving the broader effectiveness of the entry suspension.
Those asylum limitations “have been critical to maintaining the effectiveness of the Proclamation,” the filing said.
At the center of the dispute is the extent of presidential authority to respond to illegal border crossings by suspending entry while also limiting access to protections otherwise available under federal asylum law.
The administration contends that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president sufficient authority to impose the restrictions contained in Proclamation 10888. The lower courts, however, concluded that portions of the proclamation conflicted with federal immigration law, resulting in the policy being blocked in part.
DHS is now asking the Supreme Court to resolve that disagreement and restore the challenged provisions.
The case could carry significant consequences for the administration’s broader border strategy because the government has tied the dramatic decline in encounters at the southern border directly to the proclamation and its asylum restrictions.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the case.
The justices directed the lead respondent, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, to file a response to the administration’s petition by Sept. 23.
Until the Supreme Court determines whether to take up the dispute, the D.C. Circuit ruling limiting portions of the president’s border proclamation remains at the center of the administration’s effort to preserve one of its principal tools for restricting illegal entry and asylum claims at the southern border.
Original article
Comments