State Attorneys General Demand That The Court Reconsider The Public Charge Rule In Light Of The Pandemic

Supreme CourtThe attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the decision early this year to allow the Trump Administration to rollout its “public charge rule.”  The Court split along ideological lines to lift the nationwide injunction.  The decision was clearly influenced in part by the strong opposition of some members to lower courts binding the entire country through national injunctive orders.  However, it also reflected the view of conservative justices on the inherent authority of the President in the area.  The effort to get a reconsideration of the decision based on the pandemic is likely to be viewed by a number of justices as seeking a policy judgment.

What is clear is that the public charge rule could have a broader scope and costs for immigrant families since a huge percentage of the population is receiving forms of public support in the crisis.  The Administration can use its discretionary authority to curtail enforcement for immigrants during this period. It should do so on humanitarian grounds. However, the question is whether the Court should intervene in light of such changed circumstances.

The question of lifting an injunction often balances the harm to parties in allowing a policy or program to continue.  However, it also turns on the likelihood of prevailing on the merits.  In the earlier filing, the parties argued that the application of the rule would cause irreparable harm but the Court still lifted the injunction.

Given the earlier decision, it is likely that most if not all of the conservative justices will be reluctant to intervene. There is the danger of looking like a superlegislature.

The order granting of the motion said nothing but a result. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed a strong opposition to these injunctions, a view that is unlikely to change with the renewed motion:

“If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal. A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate Cite as: 589 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 GORSUCH, J., concurring period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay. And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari. What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?”


26 thoughts on “State Attorneys General Demand That The Court Reconsider The Public Charge Rule In Light Of The Pandemic”

  1. Good news! One of the goat king’s enablers is going to jail, unless the goat persons him. Tomorrow morning Turley will defend the goat’s enabler here. Tume in then.


    1. Why don’t you and your boys conduct your affairs like the lazy, greedy, striking, thug teachers in their communist unions and their cohorts, university “professors,” and go out on strike. Better yet. just claim “comparable pay” like all good public workers. Hopefully, Trump will fire all your lazy a–es before the door hits your a–es on the way out. The problem for teachers and professors in this COVID-19 environment is that instruction has gone digital and virtual and teachers are completely obsolete.

      When the tide went out, taxpayers got to see for the first time who was swimming naked (attrib. Warren Buffet).

  3. Legal immigration requires the immigrant not be more of a burden to the general public than any ordinary citizen. Sound principle.
    What does a pandemic have to do with this?

  4. The American Founders four times required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” in their Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802. The first of theses Acts was passed within the year of adoption of the U.S. Constitution by the same men who wrote the Constitution. I should think that precluding parasites-cum-communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) is constitutional and well within the parameters set by the American Founders as “original intent.”

    1. But for the brutality and violence of, and the illicit, illegitimate anomaly that was, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his successors’ “Reign of Terror,” the Naturalization Act of 1802 would retain full force and effect. The succinct Ten Commandments have held dominion for millennia. At some point, Americans may awaken and demand the return of their country and Constitution. Barring that, communism will soon subjugate, subsume and fully and irrevocably abrogate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  5. At some point Congress may have to limit the ability of federal district courts to impose nationwide injunctions.

    That and other things. Radical judges are proving to be radical.

    1. They will limit it for the exact period of time there is a Republican Right Winger in the office. As soon as someone who is outside their political leanings starts imposing things they do not like, they, along w the Trump/McConnell court stacking will take over and all of a sudden, all this bellowing will stop. They will feel the need to reinstitute whatever is necessary to fulfill their poltiical, not justice/judicial, intentions.

    2. The singular American failure is the Supreme Court. All acts, including those of all elected and appointed officials, must comport with the literal words of fundamental law. “Legislating from the bench” is actionable treason.

      “…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

  6. THE DEM’s continue their games. They can’t stand TRUMP. He continues to beat them. He will beat them again. Supreme Court will rule against the DEM Atty Generals again

  7. Hmmmm sounds like what individual rogue members of the 9th Circuit do on seemingly daily basis. What are they complaining about?

  8. Trump clearly thinks he is king. So do most of his appointees to the federal bench. If history predicts the future, Trump will issue whatever edicts come to him at 3AM, and absolutely no one will do a thing but complain. He is truly immune from any negative consequences for whatever he does. History will revile him, but we have to suffer him. Makes you wonder about the thousands of deaths in wars gone by which were allegedly fought to prevent dictatorship in other countries, and now we have come to this.

    1. Chuck,

      You have no clue as to what a “real” dictator does. You have benefited from everything Trump did, but you still hate him.

      If you want to see what dictatorship is like, you should go to China or Cuba (without a Chinese guide), and you may come back and see what you have here is nothing like what your hatred describes.

      I’m sure you think that Hillary would have been a genuine darling in the White House…fortunately for the rest of us, that never happened.

    2. Are you allowed to vote? Why? You’re irrational. Your singular goal is the acquisition of “free stuff” and the right to kill babies. You don’t know what American freedom means and you don’t care. Why the —- are you and your communist allies in this country? Oh, yeah, I forgot. The “free stuff” derived as The White Man’s Burden – not the proposition, the axiom, right? My bad.

  9. As a naturalized citizen I have no problem with the public charge conditions being enforced even in these times.
    Every immigrant subject to the public charge requirements had to have had a sponsor. This means that someone agreed to be responsible for them. This should be enforced.
    Of course if things deteriorate and the self induced crash extends for a long time, we may want to look at relaxing the rules but sponsorship should not be such a fragile thing.

    1. My parents were naturalized citizens and didn’t receive anything but an opportunity. Didn’t even insist on bilingual education for my siblings and I; didn’t demand “push 2 for Spanish”.

      Open borders and a welfare state are really bad ideas.


  10. Everyone knows that anyone, anytime and in unlimited numbers should be able to come to the United States and after arrival be able to receive some type of public assistance. And if you disagree with that statement you are an evil, racist, nazi!

    1. Public assistance? as in your neighbors, friendly Americans and laying down your life archetypal American?


      This isnt your father’s Statue of Liberty America, Tony. Get real

      1. Anonymous, what does Antonio’s father’s Statue of Liberty, have to do with anything in this article. You would like to axe the Constitution and make the Statue of Liberty the highest law in the land?
        It is clear that you are a true Socialist, since it is easy to spend other people’s money and take it from them forcibly. Your view of America is destruction of its Constitutional mandates.
        What did your father’s Statue of Liberty look like? A statue of Stalin? Or, Hitler?
        Your name tells us all we have to know about you.

      2. Tell you what, why don’t you move to Canada (or Australia) illegally and demand that the their taxpayers educate your children for free and give you benefits. It ain’t going to happen. I guess they are racist too, right?

        1. Or Mexico, for that matter. Present at a hospital emergency room south of the Rio Grande and expact Medicald benefits, and what you’ll get is a llong bill for services with even longer numbers on it.

          Europe is experiencing buyers’ remorse over an immigration policy very much like what the liberal minority of SCOTUS would like to impose on the people of the United States. Our stimulus plan is something that would be tremendously less feasible were it to extend to every ilegal immigrant seeking a new life at the expense of people legally present in the United States.

          Our country’s already threatened by the stunning effects of this pandemic. It’s likely this won’t be the last pandemic. RNA viruses like the coronaviruses aren’t getnetically stable. We can expect, now that SARS_CoV2 has a firm foothold world-wide to see more mutant strains of it.

          The last thing we need is to compound our nation’s humanitarian crisis by imposing other nations’ misery on our own. I’ve lived in a sanctuary city. Those who take advantage of our kindness don”t, by and large reciprocate with kindness of their own, but with criminality. Fellow American citizens who are Hispanic mostly tended to agree with me.

          I’ve had cars and my home vandalized for no more reason than being among the few non-Hispanic in the neighborhood. I used to be a firm believer in free immigration until I learned over a period of years that illegal immigrants have no respect for law or for other people’s civil rights. We need to stop importing other nations’ intolerance and their willingness to take from us indefinitely.

Comments are closed.