Justices rule for Trump administration in deportation case

[rangerrebew]

 Justices rule for Trump administration in deportation case
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can deport some people seeking asylum without allowing them to make their case to a federal judge.
The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, early Monday, June 15, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) © Provided by Associated Press The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, early Monday, June 15, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The high court's 7-2 ruling applies to people who fail their initial asylum screenings, making them eligible for quick deportation, or expedited removal.

The justices ruled in the case of man who said he fled persecution as a member of Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, but failed to persuade immigration officials that he faced harm if he returned to Sri Lanka. The man was arrested soon after he slipped across the U.S. border from Mexico.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justices-rule-for-trump-administration-in-deportation-case/ar-BB15XWwS?ocid=wispr

[skeeter]

This should end the asylum scam. I think.

[rangerrebew]

In football this would be termed a "make up call" because they were too chicken sh*t to properly apply the law on the DACA fiasco.

[rangerrebew]

This should end the asylum scam. I think.

As long as Sotomayer, Roberts, and Ginsberg are on the court that will never happen.

[skeeter]

As long as Sotomayer, Roberts, and Ginsberg are on the court that will never happen.

Illegals were claiming asylum and forever disappearing into the interior pending their ‘hearing’. This 7-2 ruling sounds as though that will no longer be an option for them.

[Elderberry]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161_g314.pdf

Syllabus 2.  As  applied  here,  §1252(e)(2)  does  not  violate  the  Due  Process  Clause.  More than a century of precedent establishes that, for aliensseeking initial entry, “the decisions of executive or administrative of-ficers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.” Nishimura Ekiu, 142 U. S., at 660.  Respondent ar-gues that this rule does not apply to him because he succeeded in mak-ing it 25 yards into U. S. territory.  But the rule would be meaningless if it became inoperative as soon as an arriving alien set foot on U. S. soil.  An alien who is detained shortly after unlawful entry cannot besaid to have “effected an entry.”  Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, 693. An alien in respondent’s position, therefore, has only those rights re-garding admission that Congress has provided by statute.  In respond-ent’s case, Congress provided the right to a “determin[ation]” whether he  had  “a  significant  possibility”  of  “establish[ing]  eligibility  for  asy-lum,” and he was given that right.  §§1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), (v).  Pp. 34–36. 917 F. 3d 1097, reversed and remanded.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.  BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judg-ment,  in  which  GINSBURG, J., joined.    SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined

Because   the   Ninth   Circuit   erred   in   holding   that   Â§1252(e)(2)  violates  the  Suspension  Clause  and  the  Due  Process  Clause,  we  reverse  the  judgment  and  remand  thecase with directions that the application for habeas corpusbe dismissed. It is so ordered