Trump Loses Again, On Appeal — In Ninth Circuit: No, On “Public Charge” Stay Orders

Once again, 45’s lawless over-reaching, on immigration measures has been blunted, in a very solid 97 page opinion out of California.

In this case, it is the attempt to deem inadmissable, or deport people who’ve received any US aid in the last four years. That won’t happen now. This measure is also pending before the Supremes. However, the highest court has now clearly indicated that it won’t reach the question before Trump is voted out in November [thus mooting it]. So, this may well be the last word on it:

. . . .Regarding § 1182(a)(4)(B), we have recognized that this provision establishes “factors [that] are to be considered ‘at a minimum,’” but “[o]ther factors may be considered as well, giving officials considerable discretion in their decisions.” City & Cty. of San Francisco v. USCIS, 944 F.3d 773, 972 (9th Cir. 2019). The Proclamation does not permit any exercise of official discretion, as the enumerated § 1182(a)(4)(B) factors do, but instead imposes an absolute bar on the entry of uninsured immigrants. For instance, one of the individual Plaintiffs has submitted evidence that he could add his wife to his employer’s healthcare plan once she obtained a social security card, but social security cards are not mailed quickly enough to meet the 30-day deadline mandated by the Proclamation.

Even in this situation, the consular officer has no discretion to consider that the Plaintiff’s wife can obtain an approved health insurance plan and that this factor would weigh against finding that she is likely to become a public charge under § 1182(a)(4)(B). Instead the officer must find that she is inadmissible because she cannot obtain this insurance within 30 days. Without the Proclamation, the officer would have the discretion to consider her admissible, as § 1182(a)(4)(B) intended. In sum, the Proclamation’s health insurance requirement supplants the discretion afforded to consular officers in § 1182(a)(4)(B). . . .

[In addition,] the Proclamation’s perfunctory time limitations do not comport with the textual limits of § 1182(f); and second, § 1182(f) does not provide the President with limitless power to deny visas to immigrants based on purely long-term economic concerns. . . .

Now you know. . . . Happy Cinco!. . . smiling.

नमस्ते

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: