On immigration and the law: SCOTUS decides that “temporary” means temporary and that the Trump orders were not based on race
Here’s the ruling, in a 6-3 opinion with Alito authoring:
In these cases, we consider whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation. We hold that they are not.
The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows “no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination” of a TPS designation. 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term “determination” can be used to describe either an individual decision or the whole process leading to a final decision, and under either understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.
The sole constitutional claim before us will likely fail. Citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, one set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti’s TPS designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country’s population. But, ironically, one of respondents’ other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong, race-neutral explanation for Haiti’s termination: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past. For these reasons, the District Courts erred in granting interim relief.
The opinion points out that these “temporary” exceptions often last for many decades.
NOTE: SCOTUS should be issuing a ruling on birthright citizenship soon. If I had to guess, I’d say they will uphold the present interpretation of how it functions. But I simply don’t know. Personally, I think the arguments against the current construction of the law are strong. But there’s room for ambiguity and it would be such a big change to make it more restrictive that I don’t think it will happen.
Might the Court simply decide that Trump doesn’t have the authority to decide the birthright question by EO?
The birthright question is too fundamental to be permanently decided by EO, i.e. by one man’s opinion. Since partisanship in Congress prevents resolution of this issue… The S.C. has a constitutional duty to clarify the issue. Doing so in light of a fact based, reasoned examination of the exact wording of the 14th Amendment. As viewed from the perspective of the originating Congress.
If we are to guess about what the ruling might be, I think it more likely that the Court would rule that deliberate birth practices to gain citizenship for one’s baby — without a correspondent, contemporaneous effort of the parents to become naturalized citizens, thus attesting to their genuine commitment — won’t work. Then the burden would be on the future parents to do more than just buy airline tickets here .
There was a SCOTUS decision that apparently not many are interested in. Including myself to some extent because I have no interest in concealed carry of a firearm.
Jonathan Turley was trying to mention it on Fox when he got cut off. He seemed to think it had some importance beyond the direct issue at hand, perhaps.
In Hawaii, prior to this decision, one could get a concealed carry permit (easily or with great difficulty?), but one could not carry onto a privately owned property that was open to the public unless the property owner gave permission. Presumably either with a posted sign, or through private communication.
SCOTUS struck this down. If you’ve got the permit, you are good to go, though I’m not sure how “blanket” this is.
God help us when the Democrats take over and pack the court.
@GB: “As viewed from the perspective of the originating Congress.”
What I have read about an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution (at least the 1787 version and the 12 initial Amendments) is that the analysis of pertinent language should also consider what the ratifiers of the Constitution or of the Amendments believed the valid meaning to be. The Framers/ creators of that language of course have a large voice in that, but the real sovereignty rests with “the people” via their state legislatures or their conventions.
Geoffrey Britain wrote:
“Since partisanship in Congress prevents resolution of this issue… The S.C. has a constitutional duty to clarify the issue. Doing so in light of a fact based, reasoned examination of the exact wording of the 14th Amendment. As viewed from the perspective of the originating Congress.”
…
Also valuable, in examining the relevant, historic context, is the writings of the guy(s?) who clarified this only applied to slaves’ children, not others who come to America.
I don’t know why that is brushed aside by so many!
Or maybe I do.
If you look at the discussion on birthright citizenship by the originators of the 14th amendment, it didn’t apply to diplomats, visitors or aliens. It only made the former slaves’ citizens. That’s why congress later had to pass the Indian citizenship act.
14th amendment has nothing to do with immigration. It passed to get rid of the dred scott decision
Does anyone realize that we have moved beyond rational argument and into the realm of “did so.. did not.. did so.. did not…” Whatever the opinion crafted by Alito reads, it absolutely doesn’t matter. We have passed truly into some grey dimension where nothing is real OR unreal, at least to those who want to tear it all down and will stop at nothing to achieve that aim.
BobS,
Yes we have, it’s become they might be SOB’s but they’re my SOB’s!