Supreme Court possibility would approach immigration decisions through plain text of the law
At 5pm today, President Trump will announce his choice for Supreme Court Justice and odds have it that it will be Amy Coney Barrett.With Pres. Trump following former Pres. Obama's lead in making significant changes to immigration policy through executive action, the Supreme Court's role on the issue has intensified due to legal challenges to those actions. Over the last several years, the Court has issued decisions on the DAPA and DACA executive amnesties, public charge, and the president's authority under 1182(f) to suspend immigration if it serves the national interest. Past decisions and their general judicial philosophy provide some insight into how Barrett might approach immigration issues on the nation's highest court.
AMY CONEY BARRETT
"Barrett is considered a textualist, meaning that her rulings tend to be based on the plain text of the law. Her recent opinions on immigration-related cases demonstrate this approach.
In June 2020, Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion to Cook County v. Wolf, a federal court decision that struck down Pres. Trump's public charge rule that requires immigration officers to consider whether a green card applicant would need to access public benefits. She opined that because the rule only applies to new applicants for green cards and exempts refugees and asylees, among other vulnerable groups, it falls within the context of the laws passed by Congress that block admission for immigrants who could become public charges.
"Congress has delegated the power to determine who may enter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts generally have no authority to second-guess the Executive's decisions." [NumbersUSA]
No comments:
Post a Comment