Author Topic: SCOTUS Refuses To Block Trump’s “Public Charge” Rule  (Read 540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,216
https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/25/scotus-refuses-block-trumps-public-charge-rule/

SCOTUS Refuses To Block Trump’s “Public Charge” Rule
JAZZ SHAW  Posted at 2:31 pm on April 25, 2020
Quote
Back in January, the Supreme Court cleared the way for a new public charge rule put in place by the Trump administration. The rule allows US immigration officials to consider a broader spectrum of public assistance programs, such as food stamps and Section 8 housing when considering whether or not green card applicants are self-sufficient. Several blue-state attorneys general sued to have the rule blocked, gaining victories in four lower courts. But by January, the matter seemed settled in favor of the White House.

A different group of attorneys general, led by New York State, had asked the court to revisit the ruling in light of the current coronavirus pandemic. That request apparently didn’t carry enough weight because the justices rejected the request without comment yesterday.
If, as anti-Covid-vaxxers claim, https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/robert-f-kennedy-jr-said-the-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-deadliest-vaccine-ever-made-thats-not-true/ , https://gospelnewsnetwork.org/2021/11/23/covid-shots-are-the-deadliest-vaccines-in-medical-history/ , The Vaccine is deadly, where in the US have Pfizer and Moderna hidden the millions of bodies of those who died of "vaccine injury"? Is reality a Big Pharma Shill?

Millions now living should have died. Anti-Covid-Vaxxer ghouls hardest hit.

Online Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,963
Quote
The Supreme Court on Friday denied a request to block the Trump administration's "public charge" rule during the coronavirus health crisis.

A group of state attorneys general had asked the court to issue an injunction against the rule, which links a migrant's eligibility for legal status with the likelihood that he or she will rely on public assistance.

The court had decided earlier this year to allow the rule to go into effect, but the group of state officials, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), had asked the justices to revisit the decision in light of the ongoing pandemic.

The court did not publish an opinion on its decision not to grant the request, nor did it publish a vote tally for the move.

But their order on Friday did leave open the possibility that the attorneys general could seek relief in the lower courts.

James said that she intends to file for an injunction with a federal district court, which had granted her initial motion before the outbreak.

“The Supreme Court’s order tonight allows us to continue the fight to halt the Public Charge Rule during the current public health crisis, and gives us the opportunity to make our case in a federal court in New York,” James said in a statement. “We will soon file an emergency motion in the Southern District of New York because our country cannot afford to wait. The Public Charge Rule threatens the public’s health, our economy, and all New Yorker — citizens and non-citizens alike. Every person who doesn’t get the health coverage they need today risks infecting another person with the coronavirus tomorrow.”

James, who was joined by her counterparts from Connecticut and Vermont and the corporation counsel for New York City, argued in her emergency motion earlier this month that the new administration rule is a threat to public health amid the coronavirus crisis.


More:  https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/494603-supreme-court-denies-motion-to-block-trump-public-charge-rule-during

I suppose NY expects the Feds to pay for this, too.