SCOTUS rules AGAINST a GOP bid to defend a Trump policy with limits on government-dependent migrants
Supreme Court rules AGAINST attempt by Republican states to defend Trump policy that would have placed restrictions on migrants likely to be dependent on government benefits
- The Supreme Court ruled in a series of opinions released Wednesday that it would not enforce a Trump-era immigration restriction rule
- Trump expanded the definition of ‘public denunciation’ to deny entry to migrants if they were primarily dependent on the government for income and non-monetary benefits
- Although the rule never went into effect, the 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court majority has officially rejected this GOP request
- The op-ed was written Wednesday by Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against allowing states to defend an amendment to the immigration law by former President Donald Trump that would impose limits on the number of immigrants allowed into the country who are dependent on government benefits.
Republicans tried to uphold a Trump rule in the Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco case, and rejected by President Joe Biden, that would expand the definition of “public charge” to deny migrants entry to the country if they are in the country. primarily depend on the government for their income.
Though the rule never went into effect, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Conservative majority officially denied this GOP request in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch who agreed on Wednesday.
The Trump-era policies that were scrapped by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions designed to deny entry to the U.S. of those who would become dependent on public programs like Medicaid and federal housing assistance — not just direct benefits.
The Public Charge Rule was initially based on assessments that immigrants would become dependent on benefits, but Trump’s change to the designation suggested extending it to non-cash benefits.
The Supreme Court ruled in a series of opinions released Wednesday that it would not enforce a Trump-era rule that expanded the definition of “public charges” to deny migrants entry to the country if they were to pay for their income in the first place. place would be dependent on government and non-monetary benefits
Though the rule never went into effect, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 Conservative majority officially denied this GOP request in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who agreed on Wednesday.
Trump’s expanded definition would apply to anyone who is likely to rely on those levels of government aid for more than 12 months in a three-year period and therefore be barred from entering the country.
The proposal was another way to suppress migration and reduce the number of immigrants entering.
When the rule was passed in August 2019, a series of lawsuits were filed, causing five separate federal courts to block immediate enforcement.
The Biden administration canceled the rule, saying the Justice Department would not defend it in court.
Arizona and a dozen other red states tried to enforce the rule, saying the federal government ended the program without taking appropriate administrative steps, including soliciting public comment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case without explanation in a series of six new opinions — leaving these states without any legal capacity to defend the Trump rule that further limits the number of immigrants entering.