President Trump has had a rather rough stretch with court decisions, but Thursday changed all that.
The Supreme Court handed down a decision that will be considered a monumental win by this administration.
In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court decided the administration can deport those seeking asylum that have failed their initial screenings.
Big Win for Trump
The administration has been fought every step of the way on trying to revamp the current model for immigration.
Among the changes is to deport asylum seekers that have failed the screening process rather than allow them to stay here during an appeal when their case would go before a federal judge.
One of the biggest concerns of this administration is that if these individuals were permitted to stay here without being held in custody, they would simply disappear and stay in the country illegally.
In the majority decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “In this case, however, respondent did not ask to be released. Instead, he sought entirely different relief: vacatur of his ‘removal order’ and ‘an order directing [the Department] to provide him with a new . . . opportunity to apply for asylum and other relief from removal.’”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan were the only two that dissented, with Sotomayor penning the dissenting opinion.
In her opinion, Sotomayor said the ruling “deprives [asylum seekers] of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order, an order which, the Court has just held, is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance.”
“Today’s decision handcuffs the Judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers.”
Not a Precedent
Both Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with the majority, but they also wanted to make it clear their decision was not meant to be a precedent for all cases.
Instead, they wanted it on the record that their decision was meant for only the case before them rather than a broad stroke precedent on any and all similar matters that may occur in the future.
Breyer wrote, “I agree that enforcing those limits in this particular case does not violate the Suspension Clause’s constitutional command.
“But we need not, and should not, go further.”
He added, “I would therefore avoid making statements about the Suspension Clause that sweep beyond the principles needed to decide this case, let alone come to conclusions about the Due Process Clause, a distinct constitutional provision that is not directly at issue here.”