By Tank Murdoch
(TNS) The men and women whom President Donald Trump has nominated to, and placed on, federal courts continue to prove why it’s imperative Republicans hold onto the Senate in November.
- Check out “TRUMP ERA: The New America” — download for FREE in Crisis Reports
Reports on Monday noted that the administration won another legal battle in the president’s efforts to reform immigration policy in ways that are beneficial to American taxpayers, even those who disagree with him on the issue because they are constantly misinformed by a biased, dishonest ‘establishment’ media.
To wit, the Supreme Court ruled that the White House’s policy of rejecting immigrants who are most likely to need welfare benefits and become wards of taxpayers was legally sound and constitutional.
Fox News reported:
The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to enforce, for now, its “public charge” immigration restriction, lifting a pair of preliminary injunctions issued by federal judges.
The Monday order followed a 5-4 split vote that divided the court’s conservatives and liberals.
At issue is the administration’s rule issued in August that would restrict immigrants entering the United States if the government believes they will rely on public assistance, such as housing or health care benefits. Lower federal courts had blocked the policy from being implemented while the issue is being litigated.
The court’s liberal justices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, would have blocked the regulation’s enforcement.
After losing at the lower courts, the Justice Department asked the high court to intervene, allowing temporary enforcement until the issue is resolved on the merits. The states of Connecticut, Vermont, and New York, as well as New York City and immigrant rights groups had brought the suit.
In a nutshell, the president simply does not think it’s fair that Americans should immediately be forced to financially support new arrivals — that they ought to either have be supported by family or friends already in the U.S. or be able to support themselves.
This policy is no different than immigration policies throughout the developed world. And frankly, it makes perfect sense: Why should American taxpayers be forced to care for immigrants the moment they set foot on U.S. soil, especially when there are citizens who are as needy or more so?
In any event, at Fox News reported, Left-wing Democrat-aligned groups sued because they don’t have Americans’ best interests at heart. And for now, anyway, they’ve lost this fight.
However, in a separate concurrence supported by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch — Trump’s first high court nominee — made a much more important argument: Namely, lower federal courts’ habit of issuing nationwide injunctions to thwart political policies those judges don’t like has gotten out of hand.
“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote.
Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.
Article III of the Constitution, by the way, discusses the Judicial Branch’s authorities and responsibilities.
Gorsuch then makes it plain that at some point, the high court is going to have to address this ‘nationwide injunction’ issue (hint, hint):
It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions. Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little concurring opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence.
This is not normal. Universal injunctions have little basis in traditional equitable practice.
We would agree.
- We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW