What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for asylum seekers?

[et_pb_section fb_built="1" admin_label="section" _builder_version="3.22"][et_pb_row admin_label="row" _builder_version="3.25" background_size="initial" background_position="top_left" background_repeat="repeat"][et_pb_column type="4_4" _builder_version="3.25" custom_padding="||||" custom_padding__hover="||||"][et_pb_text admin_label="Text" _builder_version="4.7.1" background_size="initial" background_position="top_left" background_repeat="repeat" hover_enabled="0" sticky_enabled="0"]

What does Supreme Court ruling mean for asylum seekers? In a 7-2 vote, the justices said the administration can enforce the rule, announced in July, that requires immigrants to apply for asylum in a third country through which they traveled to the United States. Under the rule, asylum cases would not be processed within the United States if they did not first file an application in another country. There are exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump's administration can implement its new policy restricting asylum applications while its legality is being litigated in court.

In a 7-2 vote, the justices said that the administration can enforce the rule, announced in Julywhich requires immigrants to apply for asylum in a third country through which they traveled to the United States. Under the rule, asylum cases would not be processed within the United States if they did not first file an application in another country. There are exceptions.

The highest court did not explain the rationale for its decision in its orderbut Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed their disagreement.

The order temporarily overturns rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who through a preliminary injunction blocked implementation of the rule, arguing that it was "inconsistent with existing asylum laws."

What does the order mean?

In the face of Judge Tigar's blocking order, the U.S. government was required to continue to accept asylum applications from eligible immigrants even if they had not filed an asylum application prior to arriving in the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled that this order is invalid. Therefore, immigrants who want to apply for asylum in the United States must first do so in another country. If they try to file a petition within the United States, it will be rejected.

This order is not a final ruling on the rule.

There are still lawsuits underway in the courts seeking to discredit the rule. Those rulings can also be appealed, so it will likely take many months before those proceedings culminate and potentially reach the Supreme Court again.

Legal background on blocking the rule

Then that Judge Tigar to block the rule nationwidea panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit limited the order to to be applicable only in the states under its jurisdiction, which include Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

This opened the way for the government to apply the policy to asylum seekers in other states.

The Judge Tigar issued a new order on Monday, Sept. 9 blocking the nationwide asylum policy, but the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit again limited the scope of its order.

The Supreme Court issued on September 11 the order which authorizes the Government to implement the nationwide restrictions on asylum applications outlined in the new rule.

Recommendations

Not everyone is eligible for asylum. Any foreign national who wishes to apply for asylum in the United States or in a third country should consult with a licensed immigration attorney in the country where they will be seeking asylum to determine their eligibility prior to travel.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]