Supreme Court Rules That Trump Administration Can Go Forward With Public Charge Rule Of Immigrants

The Supreme Court delivered a major, if temporary, victory for the Trump Administration in the immigration field. The Administration has sought to implement the “public charge rule,” that would allow the denial of immigrants who will rely on public assistance, including most forms of Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. In a brief order, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift a nationwide injunction and allow the rule to be implemented while litigation continues.

The rule allows officials to consider such factors as well as an applicant’s age, health, and assets. The rule would succeed in the one of the greatest changes of our immigration system in history if fully implemented. It would, according to the analysis of the Migration Policy Institute. impact 70% of recent green card applicants.

It is also yet another slap down of national injunctions that have become more in vogue with lower court. The Supreme Court is clearly trying to deter such nationwide orders where a district judge effectively controls the policy across the country. A New York judge in this case issued such a nationwide injunction. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote separately to specifically criticize such nationwide injunctions. Gorsuch wrote “the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

The ruling indicates a solid majority is inclined to reject their claims on their merits, but that will have to come after the litigation plays out in the lower courts.

14 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules That Trump Administration Can Go Forward With Public Charge Rule Of Immigrants”

  1. That a Federal district judge is able to prevent the enforcement of Federal law nationwide is an outrage.

    The Public Charge rule doesn’t violate the Constitution of the United States of America. What it does do is make it possible for Congress to regulate who is admitted to enter the United States. That there may be equitable concerns with that enforcement hasn’t prevented Federal district judges from enforcing laws intended to further their own party’s goals, or the unjust prosecution of defendants to further those goals.

    1. Oh really??? My, your intelligent observation belies your incredulous insights into Chief Justice Roberts, whose 65th birthday was today….

  2. This gets interesting, since the DNC seems to want to through open the borders.

  3. Why do they attack the victim and not the perpetrator? Corporation welfare is what allows corporations to pay low salaries that do nor reflect the devaluation of the dollar. People works but salaries are too low so they have to receive Public help. Nobody likes to have to ask for help. But hunger has an ugly face. Today the biggest beneficiaries of welfare are the corporations. It increases their profit. Best example, WALMART.

    1. The actual victim is the US taxpayer stuck with the bill both for corporate welfare (such as Lockheed Martin’s habitual weapon contract overruns) and for individual welfare payments to tens of millions of illegal immigrants. Neither is sustainable – the people of the United States cannot afford either.

      I fully support both the Public Charge rule and strict prosecution of companies and corporate officers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

  4. President Trump is instituting rational immigration policies that align with what the majority of Americans support. Democrats have ruined our legal immigration system by subverting and distorting the laws. Why should “birther tourism” exist? Why should birth citizenship exist when it was clearly intended to address the issue that the evil of slavery brought to us but for a century has been unnecessary? Why should we allow troops of immigrants to rush our border when we have a clear asylum policy? Why did the Democrats distort family re-unification policies? Why are Democrats trying to allow non-citizens and ineligible immigrants to vote? All of these are answered by the obvious – the majority of American citizens, including those who immigrated, don’t agree with Democrat policies and Democrats/Progressives/Liberals need to import and distort our laws and give away free stuff, to actually win.

    1. SBG: stop trying to normalize Trump or pretend that anything he does or says comports with what most Americans believe or want. You clam that “Democrats have ruined OUR….”. Most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. Have consistently disapproved of him for an historic period of time; and 3. want him gone. So, when you use words like “we” or “our”, in support of Trump, you’re not talking about most Americans. He has never broken 50% in approval ratings.

      Democrats have never advocated for noncitizens or ineligible immigrants to vote. That is a lie perpetrated by pro-Trump media. How could a non-citizen register to vote, anyway? Voter registration is controlled by the various states, many of which have Republicans as Secretaries of State. You must provide proof of citizenship in order to vote.

      You want to do something about illegal immigration? Then take away the incentive for them to come here: jobs. Fine and/or imprison companies and people who hire them. It’s as simple as that. If there is no work, they won’t come here. We could go back to the seasonal agricultural worker pass system from years ago. But, doing that would hurt the profit margins of the large hotel chains, restaurants, landscaping companies, nanny and housekeeping services, nonunion construction and employers for other low pay, low skills jobs. In addition to not demanding raises or complaining about working conditions, illegals rarely file sexual harassment, workers compensation, overtime or other labor claims, so they help the bottom line. So, it’s much easier for Trumpsters to blame the immigrants and Democrats for the problem. Many of these big companies are owned by Republicans. So, keep living in your dream world of blaming Democrats for the problem of illegal immigration and believing that Democrats are allowing or advocating for illegals to vote, instead of attacking the root cause.

      1. lol no lie they really do want illegals to vote Natch

        By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Friday, March 8, 2019
        “House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.

        The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

        “We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.

        The 228-197 vote came as part of a broader debate on Democrats’ major legislative priority this year, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” which includes historic expansions of voter registration and access, as well as a major rewrite of campaign finance laws.

        The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.

        But Republicans had hoped to send a message to localities such as San Francisco, where noncitizens are now allowed to vote in school board elections.”

      2. wise up Natch learn something before you blurt stuff out

        “A foreigner, in this context, is an alien or a person who is not a citizen of the United States. Since enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, federal law has prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections, punishing them by fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility and deportation.[3][4][5] Exempt from punishment is any noncitizen who “reasonably believed at the time of voting (…) that he or she was a citizen of the United States,” had a parent who is or was a citizen and began permanently living in the United States before turning 16 years old.[3] The federal law does not prohibit noncitizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed noncitizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting in 1926.[6] However, in some states, local governments have the power to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Presently, eleven local governments, ten of them in Maryland, allow noncitizens to vote in their local elections.[7] San Francisco allows noncitizen parents to vote in School Board elections.[8]”



      3. Natch also says:

        “You want to do something about illegal immigration? Then take away the incentive for them to come here: jobs. Fine and/or imprison companies and people who hire them. It’s as simple as that. ”


        let me introduce you to form I-9 which every employee must have on file with employer

        Now if you understand that, I will now explain how illegals work here so much in spite of this,


        nobody has to get a form I-9 form for a contractor. otherwise the guy who paints your house would be giving you one, the cleaning lady, the babysitter, the lawyer who files your divorce would give you one, the waitress would be giving you one at the cafe, it would be a preposterous burden on average people that not even Democrats are willing to impose

        thus it is somewhat in the nature of commerce as such, that there is only so much you can do, and border enforcement remains a necessity.

        Or as Natch says, “Its as simple as that!”

  5. Assimilate to American culture and standards, speak english, and denounce sharia law

  6. Interesting detail, the decision will impact “70% of green card applicants.” Such a high number points to abuse of the immigration and social services system. Isn’t the purpose of immigration to bring in people that will contribute to benefit the nation’s interests?

  7. That’s wonderful news. There needs to be a return to the rule of law and the constitution in all matters. There are too many wanna-be presidents sitting in black robes in lower courts. They should be censured and removed for these stunts. It’s political.

Comments are closed.