On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an injunction against President Donald Trump’s asylum policy. The policy — which states that asylum seekers from Central American countries cannot apply for asylum in the U.S. unless they were first denied asylum from Mexico or from a third country — arguably fits under Trump’s constitutional authority, but liberal judges have repeatedly blocked it.
Trump celebrated the Supreme Court ruling shortly after it was published. “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” he tweeted.
BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum! https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2019
The Supreme Court’s order temporarily reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked the asylum policy in some states along the southern border.
While the order does not include an opinion from the Court, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent.
“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” she wrote. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
The Trump administration should have gone through the normal rule-making process, but the constant injunctions from liberal judges seem a clear attempt to undermine the duly-elected president’s authority. This particular case is also far from over, and the Supreme Court’s order admitted that it will “terminate automatically” under certain circumstances.
There is also good reason to suspect asylum seekers are trying to take advantage of the system. Immigration courts deny more than 80 percent of asylum seekers’ claims, and they only denied 42 percent of claims ten years ago.
Follow Tyler O’Neil, the author of this article, on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.