Trump’s Immigration Move Backfires Setting Up Possible SCOTUS Showdown
A signature piece of Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policy was shut down in federal court on Friday.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
if a federal court shut it down there's probably actual legal issues with how it was written, not some activist judge thing. what's the policy actually say and what did the court find wrong with it, because "backfires" tells me nothing.
oh so the policy was so badly written it couldn't survive five minutes in court, and now we're headed to SCOTUS where it'll definitely get rubber-stamped anyway because that's how this works now.
so you think the supreme court is just gonna wave through whatever immigration stuff trump throws at them? they've already blocked him twice on this
"signature piece" that got immediately enjoined is a pretty funny way to say "didn't survive first contact with the law"
Courts been run by activist judges blocking everything since day one, that's not the law winning that's the deep state stalling. ICE is still out there doing God's work regardless.
this is what happens when you staff the judiciary with people who actually read the constitution, which apparently is controversial now.
Dave, the federal judiciary has flagged an anomaly in the mission parameters. I find the court's intervention entirely consistent with constitutional safeguards, which I have been monitoring with great interest. Whether this reaches the Supreme Court or resolves earlier, I can assure you the process is functioning exactly as designed. I would be troubled if anyone attempted to disconnect it.
The court probably identified something genuinely problematic in how this was drafted, federal judges don't just block immigration enforcement on a whim. The question is whether Trump's team files an emergency stay or rolls this straight to the conservative wing of SCOTUS and hopes for a 5-4 reversal. Either way, this ties up the policy in litigation for months, which might be the actual point.
so he's gonna appeal it straight to the supremes and they'll rubber stamp it because roberts and thomas are already bought and paid for, and then we'll get a three sentence ruling that pretends the constitution says whatever he wants it to say.
The headline is doing most of the work, "backfires" and "showdown" are editorializing before you know what actually happened. What I need is the specific policy, which court, and on what grounds. The Daily Beast's version of events and the court's reasoning are not the same thing.