Donald Trump is about to get some bad news.
And it is from the last place he ever expected.
That’s because the Supreme Court is about to betray Donald Trump in this major case.
President Trump and his supporters breathed a major sigh of relief when the Supreme Court lifted an Obama judge’s nationwide injunction blocking new asylum rules banning illegal aliens from entering the country and requesting asylum if they had not already done so in another country they passed through.
This ruling allowed the new asylum rules to go into effect while the case worked its way through the court system.
But at least one expert thinks the Trump administration should put away the champagne.
That’s because John Roberts’ treachery in the decision blocking the Trump administration from putting a citizenship question on the census could come back to haunt the President.
In that case, Roberts sided with the court’s four liberals to block the administration from adding a citizenship question to the census because even though Roberts claimed they had the right to do so, the chief justice did not believe Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s stated rationale for adding the question.
Colin Kalmbacher for Law and Crime wrote:
Roberts turned heads earlier this summer when he effectively voted against the inclusion of a citizenship question on the U.S. Census. The actual decision–including Roberts’ opinion–is a bit more complicated than that but the ruling had the effect of killing the administration’s plans for including the question on the 2020 Census.
What was Roberts’ justification for affirming the lower court’s injunction? The “arbitrary and capricious” standard culled from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946.
In her dissent from the court’s decision, liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited her belief that the administration used an “arbitrary and capricious” standard to impose these new asylum rules.
On this score, the District Court addressed the Government’s principal justifications for the rule: that failing to seek asylum while fleeing through more than one country “raises questions about the validity and urgency” of the asylum seeker’s claim, and that Mexico, the last port of entry before the United States, offers a feasible alternative for persons seeking protection from persecution. The District Court examined the evidence in the administrative record and explained why it flatly refuted the Government’s assumptions. A “mountain of evidence points one way,” the District Court observed, yet the Government “went the other—with no explanation.”
Sotomayor’s dissent was a giant signal to Chief Justice Roberts that he should employ the same standard on deciding the asylum rules case as he did in the citizenship question decision.
The new Trump administration rules will choke off the number of illegal aliens looking to game the system with phony asylum claims to essentially zero.
But if Justice Roberts decides to go along with Sotomayor’s flimsy legal reasoning, the Chief Justice could cast the deciding vote that opens the door for a continued invasion of America by illegal aliens.
Conservative Revival will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.