SCOTUS rules AGAINST a GOP bid to defend a Trump policy of restricting government-dependent migrants

SCOTUS rules AGAINST a GOP bid to defend a Trump policy of restricting government-dependent migrants

The Supreme Court rules AGAINST an offer by Republican states to defend a Trump policy that would have placed limits on migrants likely to rely on government benefits

  • The Supreme Court ruled in a series of opinions released Wednesday that it would not uphold a Trump-era immigration restriction rule
  • Trump expanded the definition of “public levy” to bar migrants from entering the country if they depended primarily on the government for income and benefits in kind
  • Though the rule never went into effect, the Supreme Court bench officially denied that GOP motion by a Conservative majority of 6-3
  • The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled not to allow states to defend an amendment to former President Donald Trump’s immigration law that would limit the number of immigrants who rely on government benefits allowed into the country.

Republicans, in Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, sought to uphold a rule by Trump, opposed by President Joe Biden, that would expand the definition of “public impeachment” to bar migrants from entering the country if they first arrived Line it would depend on the government for their income.

Though the rule never went into effect, the Supreme Court bench, with a 6-3 Conservative majority, formally denied that GOP motion in an op-ed by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday was written.

Trump-era policies were crushed by the High Court in a series of decisions aimed at barring entry into the United States for those who would become dependent on public programs like Medicaid and government housing assistance — not just direct cash benefits.

The Public Charge Rule was originally based on assessments that immigrants would become dependent on cash benefits, but the Trump name change proposed extending it to include benefits in kind.

The Supreme Court ruled in a series of opinions released on Wednesday that it would not uphold a Trump-era rule that expanded the definition of “public indictment” to bar migrants from entering the country if they first arrived line from the government for their income and would not be dependent – cash benefits

Asylum seekers from Central and South America are escorted by a border agent after crossing the Rio Grande River into the United States in Texas, June 13, 2022 Trump introduced the rule in 2019, but a series of court cases prevented it from ever taking effect

Though the rule never went into effect, the Supreme Court bench, with a 6-3 Conservative majority, formally denied that GOP motion in an op-ed by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday was written

Trump’s expanded definition would apply to anyone expected to be in need of that government assistance for more than 12 months in any three-year period and therefore denied entry into the country.

The proposal was another way to quell migration and reduce the number of immigrants allowed in.

When the rule was passed in August 2019, a series of court cases ensued, resulting in five separate federal courts blocking immediate enforcement.

The Biden administration reversed the rule and said the Justice Department would not defend it in court.

Arizona and a dozen other red states tried to implement the rule, saying the federal government ended the program without following proper administrative steps, including seeking public comment.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case without reason in a series of six new opinions – leaving these states without a legal way to defend the Trump rule, which further restricts the number of people entering the country.