Federal courts have ruled against the Trump admin over 10,000 times, but the Supreme Court could still back Trump’s immigrant detention strategy
>The legal issue stems from how to interpret federal law that requires detaining immigrant “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” to the country. Contrary to prior administrations, the current one says the law requires detention not only of people apprehended at the border, but also those who have been in the country for years.
>****
>Murphy read the law to require detention. He noted the “harsh policy consequences” but said “that policy concern should not affect the judiciary’s neutral interpretation under fundamental separation-of-powers principles.” He said he was following the law “where it leads.”
>That sounds like something that could come from the Supreme Court, or at least from some of the GOP-appointed justices.
>Another example came last week, when Trump-appointed 11th Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa dissented from a panel ruling that said the law didn’t provide “unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country.” Lagoa, who has been considered as a Trump Supreme Court pick, said the majority “rejects the text’s ordinary meaning.”
I fully expect SCOTUS to dismiss the hard work of the District Courts, disregard the voluminous record of facts, and rule based on how they feel, a la Kennedy v. Bremerton. What do you all expect?