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 .