NPR Topics: News

The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border

3 hours agoCenter

By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the United States, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum.

Read Full Story at Source

Compare Perspectives

Found 8 stories

Supreme court conservatives accused of advancing ‘white-supremacist agenda’

US news | The Guardian

1 hour ago

Supreme court conservatives accused of advancing ‘white-supremacist agenda’

Lawmakers and advocates condemn ‘disastrous’ decisions that allow Trump officials to strip away migrant protectionsSign up for the Breaking News US newsletter emailLawmakers and immigration advocacy groups on Thursday sharply denounced two US supreme court rulings that allowed the Trump administration to strip certain immigration protections and fundamentally reshape the asylum system.Dozens of groups, advocates and members of Congress called the court’s decisions “disastrous” and “cruel”, while the Trump administration, Republican lawmakers and anti-immigrant groups celebrated the rulings. Continue reading...

Center Left

Read →

Sotomayor offers blistering dissent on Supreme Court asylum decision: ‘More people will die’

The Hill News

2 hours ago

Sotomayor offers blistering dissent on Supreme Court asylum decision: ‘More people will die’

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a blistering dissent from the bench Thursday after the Supreme Court opened the door for the Trump administration to revive an immigration policy that allows border officials to block asylum seekers who do not physically cross the southern border from entering the country. Sotomayor, the most senior liberal justice on the high court,…

Center

Read →

New York’s Medicaid director ‘can’t commit’ to turning over fraud risk reports

Washington Examiner

3 hours ago

New York’s Medicaid director ‘can’t commit’ to turning over fraud risk reports

The director of New York’s Medicaid program declined to commit to handing over assessment reports of the state’s fraud risk levels to Congress, more than three months after the congressional committee investigating its program controls requested the records. “New York has failed to provide certain information responsive to the committee’s letter,” Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), […]

Center Right

Read →

'Gasps' heard at Supreme Court as Alito takes personal shot at Justice Sotomayor

Raw Story

3 hours ago

'Gasps' heard at Supreme Court as Alito takes personal shot at Justice Sotomayor

A decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor to take 12 minutes of the court’s time on Thursday to read her dissent in a 6-3 ruling that makes it significantly harder for asylum seekers who traveled through Mexico and South America to enter the US provoked Justice Sam Alito to take an unseemly potshot at her, which stunned court regulars.According to MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin, arch-conservative Alito sat and listened to a very “calm” Sotomayor read her dissent, with Rubin pointing out, “That is certainly not unusual.”“But here there was a moment of tension between Justices Sotomayor, with her dissent and Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion here,” she elaborated. “Producer Peggy Helman, who is in the court for the reading of all of these decisions, said that Justice Alito said in response out loud, ‘There's much I would have added if I had known a dissent would be read from the bench.’”“She [Helman] said that people in the Supreme Court, in the gallery gasped when he said that because this is a group of people that, for all of their differences in terms of legal, interpretive methodology or even the outcome of cases, they like to make it seem as if they get a long; that they are all just rowing in the same direction, trying to do their job to uphold the rule of law” Rubin reported. “Even when their conceptions of what the rule of law is differs, that very obvious public fracture between the two of them was one that was surprising even to the most veteran court watchers in the room today,” she added. - YouTube youtu.be

Far Left

Read →

SCOTUS: No, Asylum Seekers Don’t ‘Arrive’ In America When They’re In Mexico

The Federalist

3 hours ago

SCOTUS: No, Asylum Seekers Don’t ‘Arrive’ In America When They’re In Mexico

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Thursday in a dispute over an immigration policy critical to combating migrant surges at America’s southern border. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the dissent. Known as Mullin v. Alt Otro Lado, the case centers around […]

Far Right

Read →

Bayer Win in Supreme Court Roundup Case Is No ‘Silver Bullet’

Bloomberg Politics

3 hours ago

Bayer Win in Supreme Court Roundup Case Is No ‘Silver Bullet’

After years of legal setbacks that have cost billions of dollars over its top-selling Roundup weedkiller, Bayer AG finally got a resounding win in the biggest court of all.

Center

Read →

Supreme Court Drives a Stake Through Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’

National Review

3 hours ago

Supreme Court Drives a Stake Through Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’

This was the right result, but the decision should have been unanimous.

Center Right

Read →

Supreme Court sides with Trump administration regarding asylum-seekers

Blaze Media

4 hours ago

Supreme Court sides with Trump administration regarding asylum-seekers

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and the Trump administration regarding when asylum-seekers officially "arrive" in the U.S.In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court held that aliens seeking asylum do not “arrive in the United States” until they physically cross the border into the country and therefore are not entitled to inspection by border officials until they have entered onto U.S. soil.'An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border.'The case stems from the federal government’s “metering” policy — first adopted in 2016 amid a surge of migrants at the southern border — that limited the number of aliens whom Customs and Border Patrol agents would inspect each day for asylum. When a port of entry reached capacity, officials physically prevented additional aliens from entering until capacity became available again. In 2017, asylum-seekers and Al Otro Lado, an immigration advocacy organization, brought forward a class-action lawsuit arguing that the federal government was unlawfully denying aliens access to asylum procedures. The federal district court in Southern California granted summary judgment in favor of the noncitizens and declared the government’s policy unlawful. The metering policy was then discontinued in November 2021, though the second Trump administration has attempted to revive it. A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an alien “arrives in the United States” when said alien — even while standing on the Mexico side of the border — encounters a U.S. official and thus must be inspected for asylum claims. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reversed the lower court’s ruling. The court held that the meaning of “arrives in the United States” requires physically entering the country. Therefore, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, an alien standing on the Mexico side of the border is not entitled to inspection by a U.S. official. “We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border,” Alito wrote.RELATED: Ketanji Brown Jackson melts down over SCOTUS ruling against Hawaii gun law: 'The court's objective is protecting guns' U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Samuel Alito (L) and Clarence Thomas (R).Chip Somodevilla/POOL/AFP/Getty ImagesThe court highlighted the text of other INA provisions and subsequent amendments to the statute to indicate that Congress intended asylum and inspection rights to apply only after an alien enters the country. “That Congress amended §1158(a) in IIRIRA to replace ‘at a land border or port of entry’ with ‘arrives in the United States’ suggests that we should not read those phrases — which carry different ordinary meanings — to have the same meaning.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress intended border officials to inspect and process all aliens who present themselves at ports of entry, regardless of whether they have physically stepped into the U.S. The dissent contended that the majority’s decision “ignores the statutory context and history” of the INA and weakens the asylum protections Congress created for people fleeing persecution. "The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil.” Sotomayor added, "The Court's illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in.'"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Right

Read →