Supreme Court Lifts Injunctions On Trump Asylum Policy In Reversal Of Lower Courts

The Supreme Court handed The Trump Administration a major win yesterday by lifting all injunctions on the new Trump asylum policy being enforced. That policy could result in a drastic reduction of asylum claims along the Southern Border since anyone who passes through another country like Mexico would have to first seek asylum in that country. The ruling is also a strong rebuke to the lower courts, particularly United States District Court Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco who issued multiple orders to try to impose a national injunction.

Many judges and commentators have expressed concern over the increasing practice of trial judges to issue nationwide injunctions rather than injunctions confined to their district or their circuit. Most recently  Attorney General William Barr wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal objecting to the fact that the Trump Administration has already faced twice the number of nationwide injunctions that were imposed against the Obama Administration.

In this case, the 9th Circuit issued a prior order reversing Tigar and limiting the injunction to the circuit. However, that would still bar the enforcement of the policy in California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington. Tigar issued a second order seeking a broader injunction, but all of that ended with a sweeping reversal by the Supreme Court.

While this order was not a ruling on the merits, it means that the policy will go into affect pending a final resolution.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented and objected that “Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.” That however seems a bit off center from the jurisdictional question. This is not the merits and indeed the Supreme Court does not referee policy disputes. The issue is whether it is appropriate to enjoin such a rule on a national or a regional basis before a final decision is made on the merits.

We will now have to wait for that ruling, though courts could face again the injunction question as the appeal moves forward. In the interim, it just got much much more difficult to claim asylum in the United States.

93 thoughts on “Supreme Court Lifts Injunctions On Trump Asylum Policy In Reversal Of Lower Courts”

  1. I reveled in this Court decision for 24 h, until it dawned upon me how a new money-making scam was just handed to the Mexican smuggling cartels. Soon, they will be selling Mexican Asylum Claim Rejection papers for $1500. With that kind of income, they will be able to bribe government officials to play their part in the scam. The MACR paperwork will be the next assault on the US Immigration System. It’s such an obvious loophole.

  2. From the Palm Beach Post, 75 miles from ground zero.

    “Clear obstacles to help people of the Bahamas

    The Palm Beach Post

    After any disaster, rescue and repair efforts are often chaotic, but the incident on Sunday night — when 119 storm-battered Bahamians hoping for refuge in the United States were kicked off a ferry headed for Florida — was an especially low point.

    Bone-weary men, women and children left the boat after an announcement on board that anyone without a valid visa would “have problems” at the American port of entry.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement that the agency requested for the company to coordinate with U.S. and Bahamian governments to arrange pre-screening of passengers before departing Freeport but it failed to do so. The ferry operator apologized, saying it had permitted people to board without visas, thinking they weren’t needed.

    Confused? That’s not the half of it. On Monday, the acting head of CBP, Mark Morgan, assured struggling Bahamians that the U.S. has undertaken “a humanitarian mission.”

    “If your life is in jeopardy and you’re in the Bahamas … you’re going to be allowed to come to the United States, whether you have travel documents or not,” Morgan soothed.

    Then President Donald Trump and said the opposite: “Everybody needs totally proper documentation.”

    “We have to be very careful,” Trump told reporters. “Because, look, the Bahamas had some tremendous problems with people that weren’t supposed to be there … including some very bad people and very bad gang members.”

    Oh, that old song again. The president dregs up the xenophobic bugaboos of his imagination and seeks to slam the door shut.

    Thankfully, no bureaucratic obstacles stood in the way of 1,100 Dorian refugees arriving on Saturday morning to the Port of Palm Beach on the cruise ship Grand Celebration, which had sailed to Freeport last week to drop off supplies and bring to safety as many of the storm-tossed as it could.

    All credit to Florida’s Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, who toured the Bahamas last week and, stunned by the scope of the destruction, urged that the U.S. waiver or suspend certain visa requirements for Bahamians who have relatives in the U.S. while the country rebuilds. People from the Bahamas, they noted, have a history of not overstaying their visas.

    Gov. Ron DeSantis, disappointingly, has punted entirely, stating that Bahamas relief is a federal, not a state matter and refusing to ask for visa waivers, at one point asserting that the evacuees are seeking some sort of “special migration.” As if they’re looking to gain some advantage, rather than just a chance to stay alive.

    Rather than a sycophantic parroting of Trump, we wish our governor would follow the lead of Republicans like Rubio on this. Rubio has asked that hospital ship USNS Comfort and other U.S. military aid be sent immediately to the Bahamas.

    In the face of obstruction from a U.S. president and passivity from Florida’s governor, officials must keep urging for a humanitarian response to the disaster that was Dorian — even if it means contradicting the boss or the head of the party.

        1. $0

          I make good money as a construction consultant and have a side job trolling for George Soros, thus Im here just to agitate

          1. Uuufffff!!!

            Good retort to the troll extraordinaire who lies for a living. Construction consultant of lies that is

      1. No, Paul, Commonwealth member countries have no responsibility for each other. As one of our closest neighbors and fellow humans I believe they are our responsibility to help.

        1. As one of our closest neighbors and fellow humans I believe they are our responsibility to help.

          Isn’t that the basic justification used in most of our countries foreign entanglements? What about our closet neighbors and fellow human beings in our own country? What is our responsibility to them?

  3. Any other employee, whose work product was so egregiously defective that formal corrective action had to be taken at great effort and cost, would be removed for cause. Lower courts know the law and arrogantly and arbitrailly debase it based on personal beliefs, a guilt/empathy complex and for political purpsoes, which have no relationship to objective jurisprudence – they decide themselves the law, not that which is fundamental and codified.

    The Supreme Court and its inferior allies have usurped power to become the second legislative branch which is an actionable act of treason. Inaction by Congress is their ally. The perpetrators of this and all such acts must be impeached en masse with extreme prejudice through an enhanced process “with teeth” and at a substantially accelerated pace.

    There is but one power in the Constitution; that of impeachment and conviction.

    America and the “manifest tenor” of its Constitution are far to important to be left to abject corruption-cum-treason.

  4. Supreme Joke.

    How the h— was “Crazy Abe” allowed to persist in his destruction of the Constitution of the United States? Answer: The Supreme Court approved and supported his unconstitutional illegal activities.

    “Crazy Abe” should have been ripped out of that office and terminated with extreme prejudice for the worst form of treason. Nothing “Crazy Abe” or his illegitimate successors did was legal or otherwise constitutional to this day.

    Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, “Affirmative Action Privilege,” Quotas, Forced Busing, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Obamacare, etc., and every form of regulation, excepting “commerce among the several States,…”?

    Same thing.

    Not Supreme Court,

    Supreme Joke.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. Abe the treasonous felon: “I had to burn the Constitution to save it.”

      The interesting thing about the result of the illegal American Civil War, which caused almost a million dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands more maimed, with lost limbs, etc.: the advent of the industrial age a few short decades later would have automatically illuminated slavery.

      It’s also interesting that righties and lefties who say they hate slavery, give HRC and Obama a complete pass for Hillary ordering the CIA to arm and train so-called “Islamic moderates” to anally rape and behead Ghadaffi, resulting in the most horrific chaos on earth in Libya, including open public slave trading in downtown Tripoli.

      Maybe guys like Mitt Romney and “trustafarians” like Beto O’Rourke buy slaves there to clean their swimming pools and bathrooms.

      1. No nation in history eliminated slavery with total war. “Crazy Abe” seized power and denied states their constitutional right to secession which was an impeachable act of treason. End of story for the antithetical, anti-American, anti-constitutional “Crazy Abe.”

        “Sic semper tyrannis.”

        – John Wilkes Booth

  5. JG,

    Something is eating my response to your post. I don’t know why.

    The short of it is this McCabe case is super huge.

    As a center piece to the Deep State, it is McCabe, & the point is that with the pending indictment of McCabe will most likely cause a panic among his co-conspirators.

    I think many of us believe in the Deep State’s panic they will likely attack us citizens again with a much/much larger attack then OK City or Bush/Cheney’s 911 attacks.

    I think if people put this type info out it may stop the Deep State from attempting another attack trying to change the narrative off of the corruption inside US intel/govt?

    If people have the time check this out about OKC.

    “A Noble Lie”

    1. Oky, thanks for a bad reminder in a week full of bad reminders about 9/11. Let’s not get started on that one.

      But I watched a little bit of the video. Never heard of that Officer Yeakey stuff. scary.

      I’ve read a few books about his topic including the one “Others Unknown” by MacVeigh’s lawyer, who was released from confidentiality so as to write the book, when McVeigh attacked him as incompetent on national tv. One thing is clear, mcveigh had a lot of help, not just fortier and nichols but “others unknown” and maybe not so unknown actually. IE, the ARA gang.

      I have also read many many writings by JD Cash, a journalist who covered the Trendadue arrest and death in FBI custody. and the OKC loose ends for 12 years until he passed.

      For my part, I’m a nobody, and I don’t have any personal knowledge about this matter, nor any hearsay from other sources, which is not open source material on the internet. My study of this incident is purely out of curiosity, as an American who witnessed the tragedy and wondered, wonders, still. Not super curious however! Just a little.

      A few simple questions about who knew what. Just questions, I don’t have answers, and I really don’t want to know.

      1- atf possibly knew in advance the murrah federal building was being targeted by bad people in OK trained in the use of explosives. they had a snitch named Carol Howe who told them weeks in advance it was being discussed. she told them when and where the conversations were happening, nearby at “elohim city” …. FOIA has turned up written confirmations of these informations, this is not speculation. how much did that atf office know about what was coming in advance?

      2- Carol Howe was also an SPLC informant,. Whomever was in that stovepipe probably knew something bad coming too. How much did they know? Of course they have said they didn’t know. They don’t have a track record for honesty, however

      3– John Doe 2: prolly one of the ARA gang. Brescia seems to be the consensus. Funny how he pulled a few scant years for bank robbery and nothing else. Why is he not incarcerated today?

      4– Shawn Kenny of the ARA gang was an FBI informant. When did he become an FBI informant? Was it even before OKC?
      How much did Kenny’s handlers know about OKC in advance? What role did Shawn Kenny play in the plot? Why is Shawn Kenny not incarcerated today? Oh wait, why was Shawn Kenny a convicted felon accepted into the army and promoted during his service?

      5– did Guthrie really kill himself in jail or was he murdered?

      6– what other things did “Operation PATCON” reveal that remain known? How many PATCON informants were actually provocateurs is what I really wonder.

      7- why did they fast track McVeigh’s execution, the first federal prisoner to be executed in a long time? wasn’t it worth it to keep him around and possibly wait for more information to emerge? what was the hurry?

      However, if I could wave a magic wand and know the answers, I would probably not pick up the wand and wave it. Just the questions are sufficient to trouble me and I sense the answers would be even worse.

      oh and just for a few giggles, the guy that organized the ARA, Peter Langan? His father was a CIA employee in Saigon, and now he’s a transgender in jail. That’s some pedigree for a “midwestern bank robber” isnt it?

      as the doors song goes, “people are strange….”

      1. Kurtz,

        I shouldn’t chuckle about Peter Langan being Chelsea Manning’ed, but we have to admit the US govt & other govt’s have excelled at Phk’in up people’s mind & blowing crap up.

        One thing all these type events have in common is that regardless of what the truth really is a lot of the time the govt official story is demonstrably false.

        ie: OKC, the Ryder truck could hold only X amount of power to to damage the building & XY amount of that power went into the road, sky & other directions. So what else damaged the building.

        Same type things with 9/11

        1. sure, I remember what Ted Gunderson ex FBI said about that. And a few other things.

          I have heard people dismiss Gunderson as a crank. I wonder, if such skeptics realize that he was a handful of FBI men interviewed for the top job. Lost out to Bill Webster.

          For those who find it hard to imagine that the blessed government in all its goodness and wisdom could actually tolerate or even participate in unlawful criminal activities, up to and including acts of sabotage, murder, and terror, must understand two things that make it possible:

          a. undercover operations and handling informants, or other similiar things like intelligence gathering operations and handling spies, is that they are secret. The information is secure and contained and at best, stovepiped upwards. It is rarely shared sideways, even less so simultaneously. So nobody is watching, maybe not even the supposed “Supervisors”….bad things can happen, remain undetected, and forever concealed.

          b. undercovers, informants, and spies often operate—or– believe they are operating– with various degrees of immunity. That means they think they have a license to break laws and maybe even kill. And up to a point they may indeed have such an immunity. this is necessary for various investigations such as narcotics enforcement for example.
          But it is a constant danger of excess. What happens when the biggest participants in a criminal market think they actually have immunity? I’ll just throw a name out there for example, since it is undeniable and proven in court that he perpetrated many crimes including murder with not only the tacit approval but actual assistance of FBI agents (who are now also incarcerated). Whitey Bulger. So, at what point does this raise concerns of due process and reasonable limitations on law enforcement powers?

          the concerns are not exactly the same between LE and spy business, but similar.

          1. i remember when i was a kid, and naive. it’s easy to remember the early disillusionments, since as you grow older they come thick and fast and we often forget.

            we were standing around with a few friends who were big potsmokers. One remarked that he had been recently detained and the cops took his weed and cut him loose without charges. The next one said, they probably smoked it themselves. I said no, don’t be ridiculous, they probably just threw it away. Another said what, you don’t think cops smoke weed? We were just burning one with so and so’s dad the other weekend.

            That was a “Duh” moment for me and I have been only slowly recovering in many decades hence.

            In fact, the way it works, is the bigger the offender, actually, the more latitude that offender will have to run criminal operations, just because what he is doing is worse, and they don’t want to bag a big fish on a little charge. This is a perennial law enforcement notion from the street cop up to prosecutor.

            Which helps explain why aggressive small charge enforcement like what Giuliani did in New York can actually work to help eliminate crimes on up from the trifles to serious things.

            1. I noticed Frank Lucas died this year.

              Here’s a few things to know about Frank Lucas. He was a black army guy who imported a lot of heroin from Thailand and sold it for huge profits.

              He wasn’t hooked up with the mafias. He set it all up himself with other black GIs who helped him smuggle it in coffins coming back from Vietnam. Yeah, that’s a fact.

              It took a while for the feds to roll him up. of course he had a lot of cops on the take.

              so what did he do? of course, he snitched on the smaller fry, and gave up some cops too.

              Frank Lucas went into the federal witness protection program which is a scandalous program that allows for mass murderers like Sammy Gravano to pull a few years and walk free, so long as they snitch. And like Sammy they often turn around and offend again. This program, of dubious merit, and many abuses, has been around a long time. Lucas snitched and died a free man


              But they’re not always so lucky. Whitey Bulger was a snitch too. Played it for a long time, But in the end, even though he was supposed to be in PC, they wheeled him out into GP and really fast, boom, he got the shiv.

              1. Nice writing Kurtz & that looks to be an interesting movie.

                I remember the drugs in the coffin story, but none of the rest.

  6. Chicom Errand Boy, Clinton/Bush White Shoe Boy Former Dir of the FBI, McCain has been reported, recommend by DOJ for indictment.

    Insur Co’s are cancelling his life insurance policies no doubt.

    It’s past damn time to round up those Traitors!

    1. Observe how CNN describes this bombshell story in the briefest words and spins it in the best way possible even if it is truly cataclysmic. Now compare it to the way Fox News reports it……

      This will place the DNC debate tonight in a very telling light.

      fun for all!



      Washington (CNN)The Justice Department has rejected an appeal from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe of a recommendation to indict him made by the US attorney in Washington, DC, sources familiar with the situation say.

      The US attorney has been scrutinizing alleged false statements McCabe made to investigators regarding his involvement in a newspaper report about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation published days before the 2016 presidential election.
      The US attorney, Jessie Liu, recommended that McCabe should be indicted, and in a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen at the Justice Department last month, McCabe’s attorneys argued against that recommendation, one of the sources said.

      On Thursday, a senior DOJ official sent McCabe’s legal team an email saying that that appeal had been rejected, according to a second person who is close to the legal team.
      McCabe has said he never intentionally misled anyone. His attorneys say that any charges against him would be driven by politics and retaliation from President Donald Trump for the FBI’s scrutiny of his administration.
      McCabe is a CNN contributor

        1. Safe spaces for everybody!!!! except for Sean Spicer?


          Students protest Sean Spicer campus talk: ‘makes me really scared’

          Teach-in offered as alternative event, protest of talk planned

          Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is scheduled to speak at Northeastern Illinois University today, a visit that is prompting outrage as students say they feel unsafe, and both students and faculty organize a protest and host an alternative teach in.

          Spicer, who served under President Donald Trump, is set to speak about about the upcoming presidential election alongside former chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, for the “Politics, Press, and the Presidential Election” panel.

          Members of a Facebook group called “Rally to Stop Sean Spicer at NEIU” plan to hold a protest to show public opposition to the former press secretary’s presence. They describe themselves as a coalition of students, faculty, staff and alumni.

          “NEIU should not provide a home for white nationalism and other forms of bigotry,” the group states. “As members of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, as queer people, trans and non-binary people, and women, as undocumented students, and as allies to all of these oppressed groups, we wish to explicitly express our fear in the face of the escalating right-wing violence in this country and around the world. We see the policies and rhetoric of the Trump administration—including the role Spicer took early in this administration—as drivers of this violence.”

          Late last month, the Student Government Association hosted a town hall where reportedly 30 students, faculty and others issued their grievances with Spicer speaking on campus.

          The campus newspaper the Northeastern Independent reports that during the event, student Isaac Krantz-Perlman was the first to speak up about the “underlying fear felt by other students in the room.”

          “I’m Jewish, I see a lot of people in the space who are targets, not just of Trump, but of the rising white supremacist violence that’s happening in our country right now. That makes me really scared,” he said.

          “You give these people who push violent policies like concentration camps, like a border wall, like a Muslim ban, coverage,” he added. “And when you give these people coverage, on any platform, large or small, I think that encourages violence and helps make their ability to grow that much better.”

          And an undocumented student by the name of Gabriela Loredo questioned why the university would invite someone that would “attack” her in her “safe space.”

          Meanwhile, Brett Stockdill, a professor of sociology at Northeastern Illinois, told the Chicago Tribune he was “horrified” when he learned Spicer was set to speak on campus, and that his peers had the same reaction.

          But demands for university President Gloria Gibson to disinvite Spicer were rejected.

          With that, an alternative teach in was hosted Wednesday by the Student Government Association and the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs departments.

          “The intention of this discussion was not to compete with the Spicer/Brazile lecture, but rather to inform and equip students with a balance of empathy and information regarding the speakers and NEIU as a cohesive student body before the lecture took place,” the Independent reports.

          Nancy Matthews, a professor of social justice and gender studies, stated the event’s aim was to give the aggrieved among the campus community a chance to speak out, the newspaper reported. A follow-up event is slated for Sept. 17, the Independent reports.

          University spokesperson Michael Hines, the campus police department, and Spicer could not be reached Tuesday and Wednesday for comment by The College Fix.

          Previous speakers that NEIU has hosted include Rev. Jesse Jackson and scholar Cornel West.

          Northeastern Illinois University is paying $50,000 in speaking fees to Spicer and Brazile for their talk, WBEZ reports, adding a wealthy alumnus is funding the event and no taxpayer money will be used.

          Daniel L. Goodwin, the namesake of the Daniel L. Goodwin Distinguished Lecture Series for which the two are speaking, wrote an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune praising the school for not caving to the demands to disinvite Spicer.

          “For the past few years, I’ve made donations to cover the costs of speaking fees for visiting lecturers. As part of the lecturer series, other guests have included Mary Matalin and James Carville, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, Terry Savage, Erin Brockovich and Jackie Joyner-Kersee. No university funds are involved,” Goodwin wrote.

          “As a proponent of higher education and learning, I believe encouraging an atmosphere that creates a free exchange of ideas from a variety of individuals with differing backgrounds and divergent viewpoints is critical to a student’s learning experience — even if not everyone is comfortable with that.”

          1. Hopefully someone will draw up & post a map of the current no go zones in the USA.

            I seen one posted a few years back for LA, you damn sure don’t want to take the wrong off ramp on the expressway.

              1. Have Y’all heard Frm acting Dir A McCabe’s latest public comments.

                He’s singing like a Goldfinch, I mean Golden Snitch.

                Maybe the govt can put McCabe in protective custody? I think Jeffery Epstein’s old cell is still empty.


                BTW: Anon1, have you bought your Red Trump 2020 hat yet? 😉

      1. Liu and Rosen are, like Barr, political hacks appointed by Trump, and following Trump orders to politicize and prosecute a case which is typically handed by administrative discipline. Several of the actual AUSAs working on it have left, a rare event for tose hot on a trail they believe in. If they can get an indictment, McCabe will almost certainly be found innocent. There’s no there.

        1. You’re full of garbage. Liu has an impeccable resume. She is no hack. Yale law, distinguished civil service and you call her a hack. Sad!

          Jessie Kong Liu (born January 2, 1973) is an American attorney who is the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.[1] She previously worked as deputy general counsel at the U.S. Treasury and served at the Justice Department.[2]

          Education and legal career
          Liu was born in Kingsville, Texas.[3] She received her Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from Harvard University in 1995, with a major in literature, and completed her J.D. degree at Yale Law School in 1998.[3] She clerked for Carolyn Dineen King of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1998–99.[2]

          Liu worked as an associate at Jenner & Block in 1999–2002, as a partner at the same firm in 2009–2016, and as a partner at Morrison & Foerster in 2016–17.[4]

          She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia from 2002 to 2006.[3] Liu worked at the United States Department of Justice during the administration of President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009. Her roles included deputy chief of staff in the National Security Division, counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division.[5]

          Liu worked for the transition team of President-elect Donald Trump, and in 2017 became deputy general counsel at the United States Department of the Treasury.[5] In June 2017, President Trump nominated Liu to become the next United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, which is the country’s largest U.S. Attorney’s office, with more than 300 prosecutors.[5] Liu was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in September 2017.[1][6]

          In March 2019, President Donald Trump said he would nominate Liu to become United States Associate Attorney General, but she withdrew her name from consideration later that month.[7][8]

          Awards and honors
          Liu has received numerous awards. She was named a White Collar Trailblazer by the National Law Journal in 2015, was named among the Best Lawyers Under 40 by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association in 2011, received a Rising Star Award from the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Washington D.C. in 2011, and received a Service Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers in 2005.[3]

          1. Liu is a political hack, acting as a tool for Trump’s political show trial in a dead McCabe case. She recently had to withdraw from an appointment to the DOJ #3 post because of opposition from Senators.

            “…The rejection of Mr. McCabe’s appeal would typically foreshadow an impending indictment, but that has apparently not yet happened. The grand jury hearing the case was recalled this week after going months without meeting but left without revealing any public signs of an indictment, The Washington Post reported. Grand jury proceedings are secret….

            Mr. McCabe’s lawyers have vigorously denied that he intentionally lied and believe prosecutors singled him out. False statements made during internal inquiries at federal law enforcement agencies are typically punished administratively, not by criminal prosecution.

            Hints of the case’s weakness have since emerged. The investigation was referred about 18 months ago, which is an unusually long stretch for an inquiry with a limited set of facts and witnesses. It dragged on for so long that the first grand jury examining the evidence expired before apparently being called back this week.

            One prosecutor assigned to the case recently left, an unusual step so close to an indictment. Another departed for a private law firm and has expressed reservations about the merits of the case.

            And one key witness testified that Mr. McCabe had no motive to lie because he was authorized as the F.B.I.’s deputy director to speak to the media, so he would not have had to hide any discussions with reporters. Another important witness testified he could not immediately remember how the leak unfolded. Both would have been crucial to any prosecution.

            The defense lawyers met multiple times with the prosecutors on the case to try to get them to drop charges, then appealed both to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, and to Mr. Rosen. The prosecutors and Ms. Liu have all recommended charges, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Ms. Liu, a Trump appointee, had made a bid for the No. 3 job at the Justice Department but withdrew after senators objected to her nomination.

            The Justice Department could also be taking into account the case that prosecutors lost against Gregory B. Craig, one of Washington’s most prominent Democratic lawyers. He was acquitted this month of a felony charge of lying to federal authorities about work he did years ago for the Ukrainian government.

            Prosecutors from the same United States attorney’s office are handling the McCabe investigation.”


            1. you provided opinions about mccabe that were plausible
              and yet your libelous remark about LIU is not supported by anything, apparently.

          2. She’s inconvenient to the Democratic Party, ergo a hack.

            Correct-the-Record isn’t sending us their best.

      2. Bottom line, McCabe abused his office in the FBI to interfere with an election.

        Serious crime and he’s going to do some serious time. And it’s about time.

          1. that’s a long story and if you don’t get it hen you have assigned yourself the question to frame your own homework

            I take my own conclusion and applaud the forthcoming indictment and wish it well.

  7. It just got harder to claim asylum status after being caught sneaking into the country (with a preference to just evade the authorities).

    The good news is that real, sincere asylum claims can be made in one’s home country at the US Consulate or Embassy — that is people who their government is persecuting
    for political or religious reasons. The bad news is for the smuggling gangs…the asylum scam they’ve been exploiting the past 2 years just dried up.

    Now, we just need to tweak Flores in order to break the “rent a kid” scam. Making progress.

  8. “Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.”

    Very few people in Central America are persecuted. They’re just confronting disagreeable living conditions. Which, alas, are endemic in this world.

    1. “disagreeable living conditions”

      “Emigrants bring with them a sense of trust and hope which has inspired and sustained their search for better opportunities in life. Yet they do not seek simply to improve their financial, social and political condition. It is true that the experience of migration often begins in fear, especially when persecutions and violence are its cause, and in the trauma of having to leave behind family and possessions which had in some way ensured survival. But suffering, great losses and at times a sense of disorientation before an uncertain future do not destroy the dream of being able to build, with hope and courage, a new life in a new country. Indeed, migrants trust that they will encounter acceptance, solidarity and help, that they will meet people who sympathize with the distress and tragedy experienced by others, recognize the values and resources the latter have to offer, and are open to sharing humanly and materially with the needy and disadvantaged. It is important to realize that “the reality of human solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes a duty” (Caritas in Veritate, 43). Migrants and refugees can experience, along with difficulties, new, welcoming relationships which enable them to enrich their new countries with their professional skills, their social and cultural heritage and, not infrequently, their witness of faith, which can bring new energy and life to communities of ancient Christian tradition, and invite others to encounter Christ and to come to know the Church.”


      1. The Pope doesn’t hatch immigration policy. He’s out of his lane. If people want to immigrate to the US, they can apply legally. That’s not a guarantee they’ll get in, in fact, due to inept law passed by Congress, it means they’ll be strung on without a definite “yes” or “no” for 15 years.

        1. pbinca – the Vatican was going to take in immigrants and then reneged on the offer. They has some slimy excuse for why they couldn’t do it.

          1. Paul, the Vatican ‘has some slimy excuse for why they couldn’t take in immigrants.” Yeah, they don’t want them.

          2. even a broken clock gets it right twice a day, Paul, so keep trying as you might get it right soon.


            On immigrants and the poor, Pope Francis walks his talk

            ROME – Whenever Pope Francis talks about the need to welcome immigrants, to build bridges not walls, and to invest in the countries from which people are fleeing, critics inevitably will ask, “Okay, but what are you doing about it?”

            From snarky observations about the walls around Vatican city to wry observations about all the under-utilized ecclesiastical facilities in Rome, a standard trope for skeptics of papal rhetoric is to charge that Francis doesn’t walk his own talk.

            In truth, however, this “pope of the poor” is doing quite a bit, from helping fund hospitals in the Central African Republic to having the Vatican sponsor migrant families arriving from the Middle East.

            Much more is done on a daily basis by Catholic charities around the world, from Catholic Relief Services, the international charity of the United States bishops’ conference, to local Caritas offices at the forefront of the refugee welcoming process in countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain.

            Without diminishing the efforts of these organizations that make the Catholic Church arguably the world’s largest non-governmental provider of humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees, this summary treats only what the Vatican is doing under Pope Francis.


            Though the conflict in the country has faded into a media black zone, Ukraine is still at war with Russia over the annexation of the eastern peninsula of Crimea, and pro-Russian separatists have since taken control of eastern portions of Ukraine. An estimated 1.9 million people are currently internally displaced.

            Francis made some missteps on this issue, particularly back in 2015 when he referred to the conflict as “fratricidal” – deeply offending many Ukrainians, who see it instead as the result of foreign aggression.

            Yet last year the pope called for a special collection in every Catholic church in Europe to help the Ukrainians, collecting close to $13 million, half of which was distributed last December.

            On Feb. 14-15, the papal representative in Ukraine, Archbishop Claudio Gugerotti, together with Bishop Jan Sobilo, President of the Technical Committee of the initiative The Pope for Ukraine, visited the Donetsk region, particularly Avdiyivka, which was most affected by the conflict.

            The website of the initiative quotes Gugerotti saying that when Francis first heard about this region, he wanted his representative “to go there as soon as possible.”

            Particular attention will be paid to a project directed to children, because they are “the future of Ukraine, and the conditions in which they grow up and developing today will determine Ukraine’s future for years and generations,” Gugerotti said.

            Among other things, the archbishop made a donation in the name of the pope and Catholic faithful from across Europe, that will be distributed through Save the Children.


            According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the situation in Syria is the “biggest humanitarian and refugee crisis of our time, a continuing cause of suffering for millions which should be garnering a groundswell of support around the world.”

            After a six-year war, some 14 million people need help, with 11.5 million having no access to hospitals or doctors, 40 percent of whom are children. An estimated 58 percent of the local hospitals have either been damaged or destroyed during the war, leaving an estimated 300,000 women currently pregnant who won’t have the needed help during delivery. Furthermore, some 600 people, including doctors and nurses, who worked in health-related facilities have been killed, and medicines are hard to come by.

            According to Cardinal Mario Zenari, the papal representative in Syria, more people die today for lack of health assistance than from fatalities inflicted by the fighting.

            “I carry already the blood of so many in my purple,” Zenari said, in reference to the color of his clothes. “Visiting Syrian hospitals, I saw bandaged legs and amputated limbs, and I immediately thought of the red color of blood and what Pope Francis preaches: Scarlet is service, not power.”

            In the pamphlets promoting the initiative “Hospitals open in Syria,” Zenari is quoted saying that mercy in this country is exercised at 360 degrees.

            The initiative, presented in Rome on Thursday, is a joint effort by the foundation of the Italian Gemelli hospital, the NGO Avsi People for Development, and the Vatican’s Dicastery of Integral Human Development. The plan is to provide material support and professional formation for three Catholic hospitals in Syria, both in Aleppo and Damascus.

            Monsignor Giampietro Dal Toso, acting secretary of the Vatican office, said on Thursday that Pope Francis has “a special attention for the situation in the beloved Syria.”

            Back in 2012, Pope Benedict XVI urged the former papal charitable body, Cor Unum, to help coordinate Catholic aid in the Middle East, which has continued under Francis, with annual meetings in the Vatican, that have led to “several concrete results.”

            For instance, in the last three years the global Church has helped an estimated four million people, investing some $560 million in humanitarian aid.

            At the pope’s request, Dal Toso was recently in Aleppo, visiting the city with Zenari.

            The vulnerable in Rome

            In the precincts of the Vatican every night, several dozen people sleep under the Bernini colonnade around St. Peter’s Square, many of whom use a medical clinic, showers, a free barber and restrooms installed at Francis’s request. Many are fed each night by Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the man charged with distributing the pope’s aid among the poor in Rome.

            Then there’s a recently opened Jesuit shelter for the homeless, a few feet away from the Vatican, which again, at the pontiff’s request, offers 34 beds for men who can stay there for up to a month at a time.

            Not far away, literally to the side of the Vatican’s gate and with a door that is basically located in “the wall,” Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity run a shelter called Gift of Mary. They give beds to some 50 people each night.

            With a permanent population estimated at fewer than 800 people, the Vatican is also sponsoring two refugee families, one for each church in the small state. This was announced on the same day Francis urged all Catholic churches, convents and monasteries in Europe to offer shelter to at least one refugee.

            In addition, on his way back from the Greek island of Lesbos last April, Francis brought with him 12 Syrian refugees, all of them Muslims. With the help of the Catholic organization Sant’Egidio, they’re now living in Rome, with the children going to school, the adults having received Italian lessons and help to find jobs. Some, such as Nour Essa, are currently going to university.

            Several families have followed though a humanitarian corridor opened by San’Egidio. Many of these families received financial support from the Vatican.

            These are only a handful of the many cases that could be quoted:

            The $200,000 collected by a Vatican art project and destined for a pediatric hospital in the Central African Republic, which Francis visited back in 2016;
            A January 16-17 conference held in Rome by the Vatican and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, attended by public policy-makers from Europe, North America and the Middle East, focused on refugee policies from 1933 to the present day. The opening remarks were given by Archbishops Paul Gallagher and Silvano Tomasi, from the Vatican’s Secretary of State and the Dicastery for Integral Human Development;
            An initial donation of $100,000 to Haiti, in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew last October or the $110,000 donated to a clinic for Iraqi refugees;
            A 2016 Vatican-sponsored conference held in Rome in partnership with Catholic Relief Services on impact investment, which sought to enlist the rich of the world to work with the poor, using the power of investment dollars to shift power to local communities, so they can be the lead actors in eradicating poverty.
            These activities might seem small and insignificant when viewed by themselves, but put together, they form a tapestry of concrete gestures that prove that when it comes to human suffering, Francis is trying to lead not only with words, but by example.

            1. Pope Francis still wants the people of the United States to bear the increased crime rate and social costs of unrestricted immigration. I don’t think he gets a vote. Perhaps the Pope can prevail on his fellow Argentinians to host the people from Latin America who are now forcing their way across the border.

  9. most of this current problem emanates from Mexico and Central America. The asylum regime works okay with most other countries where people have to come to our shores by boat and air. It falls flat when people can just hoof it north.

    There are some notable examples however of historical mass asylum abuse of course. Mariel boatlift

  10. We need to revoke the statutes which recognize the notion of asylum. No one should be able to come across the border just because “they seek asylum”.
    Mister Trump: Build Up That Wall!

  11. “Many judges and commentators have expressed concern over the increasing practice of trial judges to issue nationwide injunctions rather than injunctions confined to their district or their circuit. ”
    I see nationwide injunctions issued by ideologues on the federal bench being put on the endangered species list just as I predicted they would. Whoever heard of such an absurd bit of judicial overreach resulting from shameless judge shopping (California judges opining on issues on he Texas border)? Here’s Barr’s take on the farce:

    “It [the federal court system] prevents a solitary, unelected, life-tenured judge from overriding the political branches and imposing on the nation potentially idiosyncratic or mistaken views of the law. A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn’t convince anyone.”

    1. I cannot imagine how a nationwide injunction by a federal district judge could possibly be binding on any party outside his district. Where is the warrant in law for this sort of thing and why would officials of the other branches ever comply?

      1. TIA:
        It’s a murky swamp of law where SCOTUS has refused to go. It originated in English Common Law with the “Bill of Peace” that permitted English chancery judges to govern actions of litigants against closely related third parties to the litigation. For example, barring the litigants from contacting third-parties. The Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred the same powers on American judges as those enjoyed by the English Court of the chancery so this got thrown in with the wash. It was hailed with great pomp during the Civil Rights Era when lower court judges wild enjoin state governments but its reach was still geographically limited. Then, a few brave judges tested a nationwide injunction in the 70s without significant push-back from the national government and it took deeper hold with the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act which did grant courts the authority “to set aside” agency actions which was a tantamount grant of broad geographic powers. However these are hardly mandates for nationwide injunctions by Congress. All in all its an inertia right of judges that no one looked at seriously until the Obama ideologue guys decided it was too good a way to “resist” Trump.

        1. Mespo if you could have billed for that it would have been worth many thousands, perceptive, succinct, well said. And beyond my ken!

          Happy that i learned something about law here today,. makes me feel great, thanks

    2. As I am sure you know, both political sides shop judges for nationwide injunctions and this practice has been used by the GOP and right wing judges. It is not as you suggest – forgive me if I misinterpret you – an invention of “big government” advocates as opposed to right wing small government advocates.

      1. I don’t actually know that. this is a new topic for me. I do my work in humble state courts 95% of the time. A simple venue or another, where things like res judicata and collateral estoppel limit the ability of judges to fabricate new laws and negate the laws which are licitly created by democratic legislation.

        boring and yet complicated all at once, not very fun for a blog

  12. “….we must not overlook the question of irregular migration, an issue all the more pressing when it takes the form of human trafficking and exploitation, particularly of women and children. These crimes must be clearly condemned and prosecuted, while an orderly migration policy which does not end up in a hermetic sealing of borders, more severe sanctions against irregular migrants and the adoption of measures meant to discourage new entries, could at least limit for many migrants the danger of falling prey to such forms of human trafficking. There is an urgent need for structured multilateral interventions for the development of the countries of departure, effective countermeasures aimed at eliminating human trafficking, comprehensive programmes regulating legal entry, and a greater openness to considering individual cases calling for humanitarian protection more than political asylum. In addition to suitable legislation, there is a need for a patient and persevering effort to form minds and consciences. In all this, it is important to strengthen and develop understanding and cooperation between ecclesial and other institutions devoted to promoting the integral development of the human person. In the Christian vision, social and humanitarian commitment draws its strength from fidelity to the Gospel, in the knowledge that “to follow Christ, the perfect man, is to become more human oneself” (Gaudium et Spes, 41).”


        1. Pope Benedict XVI, not Catholic?

          He has been called many things but definitely not Catholic. He was Pope John Paul II’s chief defender of Catholic Doctrine for decades when he was known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Then he was accused by some as being a hard line Catholc though that was untrue. The quote above, which I have never seen, is in keeping with Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis comments on immigration and displacing families

          1. “…there is a need for a patient and persevering effort to form minds and consciences.”

            This applies to you, Young

  13. Asylum seekers have a workaround

    Board a freight train nicknamed “The Beast” from Mexico to the U.S.

  14. If it will hurt, abuse and kill people; deny basic humanity and human rights, and generally make life miserable for multitudes, we can count on this SCROTUM to do just that. The chief monster and his troll minions will support tRump and this kind of evil without hesitation. Oh, and follow the money, as some Republican will be making a ton somehow as a result of any ruling by this SCROTUM.

    1. Hyperbolic bullsh*t! It means that we have a better chance to have borders again. If you are so concerned, move to Mexico and take your wealth with you and YOU take care of these people.

      You are just a hypocritical virtue signaller who wants to look wonderful and moral by making the rest of us pay for cheap laborers.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. Peculiar response from you, Chuck. Besides the puerile language you appear not to know the the Chamber of Commerce and Republicans like Ryan and Romney tend to favor open borders and the cheap labor that comes with it. You should make an effort to think and to speak like an adult.

    3. So then everyone who disagrees with you, including SCOTUS judges who ruled in favor of Trump’s policy, are “troll minions?” You forgot to mention Hitler! Slacker!

    4. …I apologize. How RUDE of me! I just remembered to give a hearty “Thanks” to you and your friends for helping to insure the Trump family dynasty occupies the Presidency for oh, maybe the next quarter C or so…THANK YOU!

    5. did you mean SCOTUS or POTUS? Or are you talking about your privates?

      Chuck, try and frame a sentence that makes sense to the readers. Then we can talk.

  15. This will have made Justice Thomas happy, he has been looking for a case like this. 🙂 District court judges rule for their district, circuit court judges rule for their circuit and the SC rules for the country.

  16. It should be difficult to claim asylum in the US if you have passed through other countries where asylum is available. As it is used now asylum is a workaround for illegal immigration. Odd is it not that in the West many of those granted ‘asylum’ vacation in their home countries?

    As for nationwide injunctions, I am wondering whether the judicial system is going to impose penalties on reckless judges or if they will wait until restraints are imposed by the other branches of government. It is overdue.

    1. “In the interim, it just got much much more difficult to claim asylum in the United States.” Please replace “claim” with “pick” to reflect the actual situation

  17. Injunctions are almost always issued before a final decision is made of the merits in order to maintain the status quo. Why Because if the challenged decision, that may be unconstitutional or otherwise faulty, is allowed to be implemented before a decisions is made on the merits the targets of the challenged decision will be irreparably damaged. Why else have a system of injunctions?

    1. In this instance the ‘status quo’ was that this was within the powers of the presidency. Issuing a nationwide injunction upsets the status quo.

  18. Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.

    Are they taking the position the Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority to change the rules?

    1. That is the position the folks on the left take. Remember the issue on the census citizenship question? Attitudes will change when a conservative judge restrains a Democrat president. It may have been a mistake for the judicial branch to take on so much of the role of the executive and legislative branches. Act like a politician; expect to be treated like a politician.

      1. It may have been a mistake for the judicial branch to take on so much of the role of the executive and legislative branches.

        Absolutely, Young!

        Mespo posted a comment earlier this morning on the Bolton thread that bears repeating:

        JT, like most lawyers, adheres to de Tocqueville’s classic assessment of the legal profession: “lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, and to the aristocracy by habit and taste; they may be looked upon as the connecting link between the two great classes of society.” Some of us embody more the former, some the latter but in every case we are cautious and conservative by design.

        I doubt Tocqueville’s assessment would be the same today. The two great classes today are the citizen class and the political class. The citizen lawyer may be cautious and conservative because they have to work within the law the political class gave them. The politician lawyer on the other hand has achieved a station in our society that functions above the law. They are effectively not bound by caution or conservatism. Ideology is the focus and the lawyer politician is armed to fight the battles.

        1. Olly, good note. The out for ideological judges is equity rather than law. Blackstone noted that some equity is needed to temper the rigors of the law but too much equity abolishes law altogether and results in an unpredictable, lawless society, the direction in which our own legal system seems to be tilting.

          1. Thank you. Wouldn’t the courts be duty bound to follow the law as it applies to a particular case and only apply the principle of equity where the law is silent?

            too much equity abolishes law altogether and results in an unpredictable, lawless society, the direction in which our own legal system seems to be tilting.

            🙂 Once again your comment reminds me of something Mespo cited and that is a quote from Sir Thomas More in The Man For All Seasons. Here’s the exchange:

            “William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

            Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

            William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

            Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

            1. Olly, Originally courts of equity (in the chancery) only intervened in exceptional circumstances when the necessary course of the law in a particular case led to manifest injustice. It was not enough to simply be unhappy with the law’s result. In the US the courts have merged law and equity in one tribunal so it can be difficult at times to tell whether a judge is wearing his law hat or his equity hat, though different rules apply depending on which hat he is wearing. Equity should be an extraordinary setting and law the default setting. Merged, equity can become the default and the judge’s sympathies can rule rather than the law. In south Florida I spoke with an investor who was being cheated by a Hatian immigrant. His case was clear, he should win, and I suggested he take it to court. He was reluctant because, as he said, ‘there is so much equity in those courts,’ meaning he expected the court to decide on the basis of politics rather than on blackletter law.

              Bit by bit we are losing faith in our legal system, and our legal system appears to be losing faith in the law.

              1. Bit by bit we are losing faith in our legal system, and our legal system appears to be losing faith in the law.

                Your comment reminded me of what Bastiat said on this subject in The Law:

                It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

                What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

                In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

                No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

    2. Yes, of course they are. Good catch.

      To the extent that “longstanding rules” matter at all, then everything must remain status quo, including slavery when it was legal, that blacks were “3/5th human,” etc.

      Status quo is insuring Mitt Romney has the cheapest possible labor, from the darkest skinned people, to clean his pool, his bathrooms, and pickup the poop in the stables for his wife’s stallions she loves to ride.

      1. No, actually the constitution says three fifths of all other Persons.

        in Order to form a more perfect Union, has always been the motivator to upend longstanding practices like slavery, Jim Crow, etc. The entire federal bureaucracy needs to be upended and the states need to regain the 10th amendment rights.

Comments are closed.