DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Allow ‘Public Charge’ Immigration Rule To Go Into Effect As Case Works Through System
The Trump administration's request came after a three-judge appeals panel last week kept in place a nationwide injunction entered by a federal district judge in New York. Two similar injunctions were lifted last month. Meanwhile, a federal judge in California issues a ruling reaffirming immigration officials' discretion when it comes to separating children from their parents at the border.
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Immigrant 'Public Charge' Rule Take Effect
The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move forward with a rule aimed at cutting back benefits for immigrants while litigation plays out in court. The Justice Department, on behalf of the administration, asked the justices to lift a nationwide halt on President Trump’s "public charge" rule that links immigrants’ legal status to their use of public benefits. (Kruzel, 1/13)
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Allow Public Charge Rule To Go Into Effect
In Monday night's filing, Solicitor General Noel Francisco urged the court to lift the injunction while the appeals process plays out. Noting other legal challenges to the rule in other cases, Francisco said the nationwide injunction hurts "this Court's interest in allowing an issue to percolate in the lower courts." The acting director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ken Cuccinelli, whose agency is responsible for adjudicating immigration applications, has defended the "public charge" rule as "well within the law." "This rule is well within the boundaries of the law and the legal tradition," he told CNN's Erin Burnett in August. "Self-sufficiency is a central part of America's proud heritage and we proudly stand behind that tradition." (de Vogue, Sands, Alvarez and LeBlanc, 1/13)
The Wall Street Journal:
Trump Administration Makes Supreme Court Appeal On Immigration Plan
Several federal trial judges issued preliminary rulings last October that blocked the regulations from going into effect, finding they likely crossed legal boundaries. In the case at the center of the administration’s emergency appeal, U.S. District Judge George Daniels in the Southern District of New York found the rule departed from longstanding U.S. policy without legal justification and “is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.” (Kendall, 1/13)
Family Separation Ruling: Court Refuses To Further Curtail Administration's Power To Separate Migrant Families
A federal judge in California on Monday refused to create new guidelines to further restrict the government's power to separate migrant families, issuing a ruling reaffirming the discretion immigration officials have in deciding whether to separate children from their parents in certain circumstances. Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court in San Diego, which has overseen litigation surrounding separations of migrant families since 2018, issued a rare order largely supporting the Trump administration's defenses for the family separations that came after officials discontinued the controversial "zero-tolerance" crackdown along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Montoya-Galvez, 1/13)
And in other immigration news —
Six Children Died In Border Patrol Care. Democrats In Congress Want To Know Why.
After a ProPublica investigation into the death of a teenager in Border Patrol custody, House Democrats are ramping up pressure on the Trump administration to explain how six migrant children died after entering the U.S. “I find it appalling that (Customs and Border Protection) has still not taken responsibility for the deaths of children in their care,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. (Moore, 1/13)