The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on December 20, 2022, 12:23:23 am
-
Legal Insurrection by Mary Chastain Monday, December 19, 2022
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/scotus-chief-justice-john-roberts-issues-stay-on-order-to-end-title-42/ (https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/scotus-chief-justice-john-roberts-issues-stay-on-order-to-end-title-42/)
Roberts also ordered, “a response to the application to be filed on or before Tuesday, December 20, 2022, by 5 p.m. (EST).”
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay on order to end Title 42.
“Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the November 15, 2022 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:21-cv-00100, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court,” wrote Roberts.
Roberts also ordered, “a response to the application to be filed on or before Tuesday, December 20, 2022, by 5 p.m. (EST).”
-
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Title 42 — a Trump-era immigration policy implemented when the pandemic broke out to quickly expel asylum-seekers at the border — to remain in effect for now, putting a judge’s ruling that would have ended it last week on hold.
The court voted 5-4 to grant an emergency request by 19 Republican state attorneys general who sought to intervene in defense of the policy. The decision puts on hold a ruling by Washington-based U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s implementation of the policy was “arbitrary and capricious.” Sullivan’s ruling was due to go into effect Dec. 21.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the three liberals on the court in voting against the stay request. The brief court order said that while the administration cannot set aside the Title 42 policy, the decision "does not prevent the federal government from taking any action with respect to that policy."
more
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-keeps-place-trump-era-immigration-policy-allowing-asylum-rcna62560
-
My chemo brain won't process things like this that are foreign to me.
Could someone explain this to me using plain language,possible outcomes,and why they are possible outcomes?
Also,is the outcome a good thing or a bad thing from a conservative POV?
-
My chemo brain won't process things like this that are foreign to me.
Could someone explain this to me using plain language,possible outcomes,and why they are possible outcomes?
Also,is the outcome a good thing or a bad thing from a conservative POV?
Obviously not a legal expert, but my POV this was basically a kicking the can down the road exercise by SCOTUS.
-
Obviously not a legal expert, but my POV this was basically a kicking the can down the road exercise by SCOTUS.
@catfish1957
Ok,thanks.
-
Pease read before judging Gorsuch.... pointing-down
“Gorsuch acknowledged that the states may have valid concerns, but, he added, “the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials has failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not a policymaker of last resort.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-keeps-place-trump-era-immigration-policy-allowing-asylum-rcna62560
-
“Gorsuch acknowledged that the states may have valid concerns, but, he added, “the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials has failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not a policymaker of last resort.”
Justice Gorsuch is correct. For a case with more merit, plaintiffs should be suing the Biden regime for willful violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.
-
I must say I agree with Gorsuch on this. Right and wrong is one thing, and the law is another. Sustaining Title 42 might be the right thing to do, but the action was an emergency executive action to begin with, so it is really up to the POTUS to determine whether to continue it or not. We may not like it, but as a matter of law, unless congress acts, no emergency provision is going to last beyond the term of the president who initiated it, nor should it.
-
Agree 100%. They refuse to hear what they are constitutionally compelled to hear and delve into that in which they have no business at all.
-
Gorsuch is one to watch, long term.
-
Gorsuch is one to watch, long term.
Really?...aside from Thomas I always thought Gorsuch was one of the smartest on the bench.
-
Really?...aside from Thomas I always thought Gorsuch was one of the smartest on the bench.
I guess I should have been clearer: I think he’s going to be a good justice and make some rulings that will have long term importance.
I meant to watch him in a good sense.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlADydnXEAA6jJB?format=jpg&name=small)