Next full hearing in two weeks. The entire well written thirty seven pager is here, as a PDF.
Onward -- as I am off to court, myself, I will only add a bit for now. But this is a win. From the overnight opinion:
. . . .The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) “deals with one of the oldest and most important themes in our Nation’s history: welcoming homeless refugees to our shores,” and it “give[s] statutory meaning to our national commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns.” 125 Cong. Rec. 23231-32 (Sept. 6, 1979). As part of that commitment, Congress has clearly commanded in the INA that any alien who arrives in the United States, irrespective of that alien’s status, may apply for asylum – “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).
Notwithstanding this clear command, the President has issued a proclamation, and the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security have promulgated a rule, that allow asylum to be granted only to those who cross at a designated port of entry and deny asylum to those who enter at any other location along the southern border of the United States. Plaintiff legal and social service organizations, Plaintiffs East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and Central American Resource Center of Los Angeles (collectively, the “Immigration Organizations”), now ask the Court to stop the rule from going into effect. ECF No. 8. The Court will grant the motion. . . .
Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden. . . .
Onward. Trump is one viciously ill-informed idiot.
नमस्ते
2 comments:
In response to a Trump tweet that the above case was decided by an "Obama judge", US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts just replied, on the record, to the AP:
. . ."We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for. . . ."
Indeed. And a rare rebuke -- but I will take it.
Of course, the bloviator in chief couldn’t accept this unprecedented immensely justified and public rebuke (simply defending an independent judiciary from attack), so at day’s end, 45 childishly made false assertions about border security, and applicable law, which I’ll not repeat here — as we don’t traffic in. . . open and unadulterated lunacy here.
Onward.
Post a Comment