- The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to enforce a rule that functionally prevents most migrants at the southern border from seeking asylum in the U.S.
- A federal district judge in California had previously blocked the rule, but the Supreme Court’s new decision means that it can stay in effect while legal challenges to mandate play out.
- Under the rule, migrants who have crossed through other countries to get to the southern border cannot apply for asylum in the U.S. unless they have been denied asylum in another country or have been the subject of “severe” human trafficking.
- The rule will mostly affect Hondurans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans seeking asylum in the U.S. from gang violence and high levels of crime in their home countries.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order Wednesday allowing the Trump administration to enforce a rule that effectively prevents most Central American migrants at the southern border from seeking asylum in the U.S. while legal challenges to the rule play out.
The rule was first issued by the Trump administration in July. It mandates that any migrant who has crossed through another country to get the southern border can not apply for asylum in the U.S.
The only exceptions are for migrants who have been denied asylum in another country or who have been victims of “severe” human trafficking.
However, that does not mean people with those qualifiers will be granted asylum; it just means that they are the only ones who can even try to apply.
The Supreme Court’s order reverses a decision by a lower court to block the rule. Right after the Trump administration announced the mandate, it was challenged by immigrants rights groups in court.
Then, towards the end of July, California Federal District Judge Jon Tigar blocked the rule. In his ruling, Tigar said that the decision to bar a group of people from asylum was a decision that had to be made by Congress
As a result, he decided that the administration’s rule “is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.” He also said that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which requires that there is a period of public comment before a rule is enacted.
In his decision, Tigar issued a nationwide injunction ordering the administration to continue to allow all asylum applications. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that Tigar did not have the power to make that ruling nationwide.
While they agreed that the rule did go against the APA, they decided that the injunction could only apply to the geographic areas in the 9th District, which includes parts of California and Arizona. Meaning the other border states could still enforce the administration’s new rule.
Last month, Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court, asking them to put a stop on the block and to allow the rule to be implemented nationwide while the legal battle continued.
Francisco argued that Congress gives the departments of Justice and Homeland Security power to place restrictions on asylum seekers that go beyond the scope of the existing federal asylum law.
On Monday, Tigar reinstated his nationwide injunction. Again, it was blocked by the 9th Circuit, and again the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction.
Implications for U.S. Asylum Policy & Asylum Seekers
At the very top level, the rule is a massive change to the way the federal government has treated people seeking asylum under laws that have been in place for four decades.
The current federal law says that any foreign national who “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” can seek asylum in the country, as long as they can prove they face persecution in their home country.
A rule that allows the U.S. to deny most people showing up at the southern border the ability to even apply for asylum is a big shift.
According to the legal brief given to the Supreme Court by the ACLU, which represents the immigration rights groups challenging the rule in court, the asylum ban “would upend a forty-year unbroken status quo established when Congress first enacted the asylum laws in 1980.”
“The current ban would eliminate virtually all asylum at the southern border, even at ports of entry, for everyone except Mexicans (who do not need to transit through a third country to reach the United States),” the ACLU continued. “The Court should not permit such a tectonic change to U.S. asylum law, especially at the stay stage.”
The change in asylum policy most heavily impacts Hondurans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, many of whom seek asylum in the U.S. from gang violence and high levels of crime in their home countries.
Migrants from those countries by far compose the majority of people seeking asylum in the U.S. in record numbers this year.
According to the New York Times, so far this fiscal year, Border Patrol has arrested 419,831 migrant family members from those countries at the U.S. border. By contrast, just 4,312 Mexican family members have been apprehended.
Most of those families who have tried to enter the U.S. to get asylum have been released to await court hearings, according to the Justice Department, which said that more than 436,000 pending cases also include an asylum application.
Notably, the Trump administration’s new rule also could hurt refugees fleeing the humanitarian and economic crisis under the Maduro regime in Venezuela, where more than four million people have already left the country, according to the UN.
That leaves many wondering where all these people will go.
Under the rule, Hondurans and Salvadorans are required to seek asylum in Guatemala or Mexico, and then be denied asylum in those places, before they can apply in the U.S. Guatemalans have to seek and be denied asylum in Mexico.
Both Guatemala and Mexico initially expressed dislike of that plan, because it would basically take the asylum problems the U.S. has and kick the can to those two countries, thus overburdening their asylum systems.
Although both countries eventually tentatively agreed, it was only after President Donald Trump had threatened them with tariffs.
While the U.S. struck a deal with Guatemala to take in more migrants, the country’s Constitutional Court has ruled that it needs further approval.
The Mexican government has also recently pushed back against the agreement that would force them to take in asylum seekers from Guatemala, which is known as the safe-third-country agreement.
The Rule Moving Forward
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday ruling was an unsigned order, and so it did not include any reason or explanation for why they blocked the lower court’s decision.
That does not mean that the highest court agrees one way or the other with the rule; it just means that they decided it can stay while the legal battles progress through court.
That, however, could take months, and until then, the rule will stay in place.
Regardless, this is a huge win on immigration for the Trump administration. Trump noted this on Twitter, writing in a tweet Wednesday, “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!”
The president also appeared to express his support for the matter again on Thursday, writing on Twitter “Some really big Court wins on the Border lately!”
Trump is not wrong. This most recent decision follows another from the Supreme Court in July to allow the administration to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for the construction of a wall along the Mexican border.
If and when the case does go to the Supreme Court, the main issue will be whether or not the administration can change asylum policy in this way without going through Congress.
The Trump administration argues that a provision in the federal law allows the attorney general to “establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum.”
However, the asylum law only has a few, narrow exceptions to the rule that any foreign national can apply for asylum.
On the other side, the ACLU argued in their Supreme Court brief that “Congress went out of its way to underscore that only bars ‘consistent with’ the entirety of the asylum laws […] were permitted.”
They also added that giving the executive branch so much authority “flouts bedrock principles of separation of powers and administrative law.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Fox News)
Suspect in Deadly Waukesha Parade Crash Faces 5 Homicide Charges
The suspect, who killed five and injured 48 after driving through a parade with his SUV, has a long criminal history and was released on bail a week prior to the incident for allegedly running a woman over with the same vehicle.
Car Drives Into Waukesha Parade
The man suspected of killing at least five people and injuring another 48 after driving his car into a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, faces five counts of homicide, police announced in a press briefing Monday.
Dance groups, high school bands, politicians, and other members of the Milwaukee suburb marched Sunday in the 58th annual Christmas parade, which was put on hold last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
At about 4:40 p.m — just 40 minutes after the parade started — a red SUV plowed through barricades, sped down the parade route, and barrelled into dozens of people.
While speaking at Monday’s press conference, Waukesha Police Chief Dan Thompson confirmed that the number of people hospitalized for injuries rose from 40 to 48 and includes two children who are in critical condition.
That figure differs from an earlier statement from Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, which said six children of the 18 hospitalized there were in critical condition.
Thompson named the victims who died, whose ages ranged from 52-81, and identified the suspect as a 39-year-old Milwaukee man.
According to Thompson, the suspect had been involved in a “domestic disturbance” involving a knife “just minutes prior.” The police chief went on to say that police were unable to respond to the initial call about that disturbance because they had to respond to the parade so soon after they got it. He also stressed that there was no police pursuit in action before the man plowed through the parade.
Thompson said that police are “confident” the man acted alone and found “no evidence this is a terrorist incident.” Still, he declined to say whether or not a motive was known.
In addition to the five intentional homicide charges police are recommending, Thompson noted that more charges may come as the investigation continues with assistance from the FBI.
Previous Criminal History and Questionable Bond
After the suspect’s name was released, reporters quickly found his lengthy criminal record dating back to 1999.
Court and police records show that, over the last 22 years, the suspect was charged or convicted with a wide range of crimes including domestic violence, battery, drug possession, and resisting arrest.
In addition to serving at least two jail sentences, he spent several years on probation as well as in court-mandated anger management programs.
Most recently, just six days before he drove through the parade, the suspect was freed on $1,000 bail after being accused of trying to run over the mother of his child with the same vehicle.
According to a police report seen by several outlets, the man in question was arrested on Nov. 2 when the woman accused him of punching her in the face then following her into the parking lot of a gas station with his SUV before running her over.
Officers wrote that they “observed tire tracks on her left pants leg”, as well as “swelling on her lip and dried blood on her face,” noting she was taken to the hospital after the incident.
Prosecutors charged the man with obstructing an officer, second-degree recklessly endangering safety with domestic abuse assessments, disorderly conduct with domestic abuse assessments, and misdemeanor battery with domestic abuse assessments.
He was also charged with bail jumping because he was already out on bail related to an incident in July 2020. In that case, he was charged with two counts of second-degree reckless endangerment of safety and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.
While the suspect was initially facing a $10,000 bail, prosecutors agreed to release him on the $1,000 bail.
In a statement Monday, the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office said it should not have recommended such a low bail and announced that it was launching an internal review into the matter.
The office also described the bail recommendation as “inappropriately low in light of the nature of the recent charges and the pending charges” and added that it was “not consistent” with the office policy “toward matters involving violent crime” or “risk assessment of the defendant.”
The suspect is set to make his first court appearance Tuesday afternoon. The District Attorney’s office said it will file initial charges at that time.
Editor’s Note: At Rogue Rocket, we make it a point to not include the names and pictures of mass murders or suspected mass murderers who may have been seeking attention or infamy. Therefore, we will not be linking to other sources, as they may contain these details.
Armored Truck Spills Money on California Freeway, Triggering Cash-Grab Frenzy
Authorities warned that those who took money illegally could be charged and should return what they collected immediately.
Truck Accidentally Spills Cash on Freeway
An armored truck dropped loads of cash onto a freeway in Southern California on Friday, causing drivers to hop out of their cars and scramble to scoop up some of the money.
According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the money belongs to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
It scattered in Carlsbad along Interstate 5 near Cannon road when one of the truck’s doors popped open, allowing bags of cash to fall out. Footage of the chaos that happened afterward has since been posted to social media by people like fitness influencer Demi Bagby, who has over 14 million TikTok followers.
Her footage shows traffic at a standstill as people laugh and rush to grab armfuls of what appear to be mostly $1 and $20 bills.
Authorities Warn Thieves of Potential Charges
As many online pointed out, these people were actually committing a crime by taking off with the money.
Later that same day, CHP announced that it was working with the FBI to retrieve any money that was illegally taken.
“I highly suggest to anybody that picked up cash out here — it’s not your cash, so turn it in immediately to the CHP office in Vista,” CHP Sgt. Curtis Martin told reporters.
By mid-afternoon, about a dozen people went to the department to hand in what they had collected, though it’s unclear exactly how much was taken and returned.
Authorities also said they arrested a man and woman at the scene after they locked themselves out of their car with cash in hand.
By Friday night, law enforcement officials thanked those who had already come forward, adding that investigators were now planning to track down those who failed to do so using social media posts that showed their faces and license plates.
In fact, authorities later released 16 photos and videos still frames of people who stole cash, saying that they
“are encouraged to turn in the money within 48 hours in order to avoid potential criminal charges.”
See what others are saying: (NBC)(NPR)(The Los Angeles Times)
House Passes $2 Trillion Spending Bill
The package, which provides historic levels of funding for key policy areas, now faces an uphill battle in the Senate.
Historic Legislation Clears First Hurdle
After months of negotiation, the House on Friday approved the $2 trillion social safety net and climate spending package at the center of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda.
The legislation, dubbed the Build Back Better Act, was passed by a vote of 220 to 213 along near party lines. Just one Democrat voted against the measure.
Republicans remained in their unified opposition to the bill, and its passage was delayed after Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) took to the floor to speak for over eight hours through the night, setting a new record for the longest continuous House speech in modern history.
The package represents a massive overhaul of American education, healthcare, climate, and tax laws that, in some instances, provides historic levels of funding for key policy areas.
Among other measures, the bill would allocate $550 billion in clean energy investments, an amount that the White House said represents the largest federal expenditures in initiatives to combat climate change.
Some of the biggest funding areas also center around education, including a provision that would provide universal free pre-kindergarten for all 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds, which the White House has described as the most significant expansion in such education programs since public schools were first created nearly half a century ago.
The universal pre-k program is part of a broader $400 billion in funding aimed at making childcare more affordable by ensuring that families earning under $300,000 annually will not have to spend more than 7% of their income on childcare for any children under six.
On top of that, the bill will implement affordable health care changes that are estimated to extend coverage to an additional 7 million Americans through expansions to Medicaid and further reductions in the costs of premiums for plans bought under the Affordable Care Act.
Most of the spending proposed in the act would be paid for by taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans. The legislation puts forward a 5% surtax on taxpayers with incomes above $10 million and an added 3% on incomes above $25 million.
For corporations, a 50% minimum tax on foreign profits would be levied, and companies that bring in more than $1 billion in profits would face a 15% minimum tax.
A Long Road Ahead
The $2 trillion price tag falls short of the initial $3.5 trillion that Biden had asked for, but even with the pared-down spending, the package still faces an uphill battle in the 50-50 split Senate.
Democratic leaders have said they intend to pass the legislation through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with a simple majority and thus, no Republican support.
That plan, however, would require all 50 Democrats to sign on. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), however, have continually sought to negotiate down many elements of the Build Back Better proposal and so far have withheld their endorsements of the House bill.
Manchin has expressed his opposition to a provision in the bill that would give four weeks of paid family and medical leave for most American workers who are not already offered the options.
Meanwhile, Sinema has not made her specific objections clear. She instead has voiced general grievances regarding broad spending and tax hikes on high-income earners.
The two moderate Democrats have already forced months of negotiations that resulted in the House version of the package being scaled down significantly, but additional efforts to further prune the act will likely risk alienating more progressive Democrats, whose votes are as equally essential to final passage.
Democrats will also need to make sure their package follows the strict rules outlined under the reconciliation process, which requires that all provisions have a direct fiscal impact and has already forced Democrats to drop certain wishlist plans, including providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Despite the daunting hurdles, Democratic leaders said they hope to pass a final version of the act before the end of the year, though they may be delayed by a series of pressing fiscal deadlines.