Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Corte Suprema ripristina le limitazioni alle richieste di asilo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-13.

Supreme Court

«Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finché prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito»

* * * * * * *

Questa è la documentazione rilasciata dalla Suprema Corte.

Aug 26 2019      Application (19A230) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Aug 27 2019      Response to application (19A230) requested by Justice Kagan, due Wednesday, September 4, 2019, by 3 p.m.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Arizona, et al.

Sep 04 2019       Response to application from respondents East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. filed.

Sep 04 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Non-Profit Organizations and Law School Clinics.

Sep 06 2019       Reply of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 10 2019       Supplemental brief of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 11 2019       Letter of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. received.

* * * * * * *

Il problema è semplice e può essere visto da due punti di vista differenti.

Nel caso specifico, la Suprema Corte ha dichiarato legale la normativa governativa che preclude dal diritto di asilo i migranti illegali che abbiano transitato in altri stati ai quali avrebbero potuto rivolgersi in piena sicurezza. La Suprema Corte ribalta quindi le sentenze emesse sia dal giudice distrettuale sia da quello federale del Nono Circuito, che erano state emesse con valore applicativo su tutta la nazione.

Dal punto di vista generale, invece, si ripropone il quesito dei limiti entro i quali i giudici di livello inferiore possano emettere sentenze su dispositivi nazionali in materia francamente politica, sentenziando anche con argomentazioni politiche.

Non solo quindi un problema giuridico in sé e per sé, ma anche politico: mentre infatti il Presidente degli Stati Uniti è stato eletto da libere elezioni, i giudici sono semplici funzionari della pubblica amministrazione.

Se per il concetto di divisione dei poteri la politica dovrebbe astenersi dall’immettersi nelle procedure sentenziali, il potere giudiziario dovrebbe astenersi dal voler svolgere ruolo politico.

* * * * * * *

«The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Trump and his administration to enforce a ban on nearly all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.»

«In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president’s new rule from taking effect.»

«While it is not a final ruling on the issue, the decision is nonetheless a major victory for Trump and his effort to restrict immigration because it allows the asylum ban to be enforced at the southern border while the dispute wends its way through the courts. That potentially could last for the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.»

«Wednesday’s order is further evidence that Trump is changing how the Supreme Court works. Prior to 2017, it was rare for federal judges to issue nationwide orders that blocked actions of the federal government. And it was also rare for the high court to intervene in such pending cases with emergency orders, rather than holding oral arguments and releasing written decisions.»

«In late July, the justices cleared the way by a 5-4 vote for Trump to spend $2.5 billion from the military budget to pay for border wall construction. Congress had refused to appropriate the money, and a federal judge in Oakland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the transfer.»

«U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco agreed and issued a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of the new rule. The 9th Circuit Court upheld this order, but restricted its reach to California and Arizona.»

«U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late August in the case of Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. He urged the justices to lift the injunction and allow the new rule to take effect immediately. Doing so would “alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system,” he said.»

* * * * * * *


 Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (09/11/2019)

«SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 19A230.

 The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction andSeptember 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the peti­tion, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.»

*


Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide. [2019-08-26]

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow a rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide while a lower court ruling blocking it is appealed.

A federal judge had blocked the Trump administration rule, which dramatically limits the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum if they enter the US by land through Mexico, nationwide. Earlier this month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dialed back the nationwide injunction, saying that it can only apply to migrants claiming asylum in California and Arizona, states that fall under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

In its filing Monday, the administration laid out its case for the rule, arguing that, among other things, it “alleviates a crushing burden on the US asylum system” and deters migrants from coming to the US.

“The injunction now in effect is deeply flawed and should be stayed pending appeal and pending any further proceedings in this Court,” the filing reads.

The Trump administration has rolled out a slew of policies in recent weeks to try to curb migration to the United States amid high border apprehension numbers. The solicitor general acknowledged the uptick in illegal border crossings in Monday’s filing.

The rule, which was issued from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July, would prohibit migrants who have resided in or traveled through a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum. The result would be a severe limiting of who’s eligible for asylum.

Immigrant advocacy groups have claimed the rule is unlawful and leaves migrants in harm’s way.

In his July ruling, US District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama nominee, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote, “This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

“An injunction,” Tigar added, “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.”

The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in early September.

*


Supreme Court Allows Broad Enforcement of Asylum Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”


Usa: Corte suprema, ok a limiti asilo

Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finche’ prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito.

Annunci