Posted on 12/06/2019 4:39:41 PM PST by blueyon
A federal appeals court on Thursday lifted several injunctions that were blocking the Trump administration’s rule restricting immigration eligibility for individuals deemed likely to become public charges.
“Public charge” denotes immigrants who are likely to require government assistance, such as food stamps or Medicaid. The Trump administration had moved to restrict the number of new immigrants who would require such assistance, but several courts blocked the rule in October before it could take effect.
In its 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed preliminary injunctions against the administration’s rule from federal courts in Washington and California. The rule is still blocked nationwide by courts in Maryland and New York, which the decision by the Ninth Circuit do not overturn.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Dayum, it’s still hard to believe rulings like that come out of the 9th Circuit. ***STILL NOT TIRED OF WINNING***
Change in the 9th circuit court is such a coup.
They don’t want to risk a Supreme Court smackdown.
Go back to the immigration laws. You must be healthy, have a sponsor and not become a charity case.
So let the two States who block the injunction be liable for all the welfare costs. Seems fair.
Wow!
From judges Bush got past California’s blue slips!
Like the jab at Congress.
More appeals are expected - do not be surprised it heads to the SCOTUS.
Go back to the immigration laws. You must be healthy, have a sponsor and not become a charity case.
Exactly, President Trump is just enforcing existing laws, not snowflake feelings
Trump has neutralized the 9th Circuit.
Trump has already appointed more 9th Circuit Judges than Obama.
and should surpass Clinton by 2020.
13 Republicans - 16 Democrats
Dayum, it’s still hard to believe rulings like that come out of the 9th Circuit. ***STILL NOT TIRED OF WINNING***
I actually got a headache reading that something positive came out/from the 9th Circus Court.
So let the two States who block the injunction be liable for all the welfare costs. Seems fair.
Just send every illegal to their state of choice (between these two states)
It was only a 3 Judge panel. Occasionally, we end up with 2 conservative judges on a panel, and they issue some reasonable decisions. We even had a 2A judgement a few years ago that pretty much made CA a "Must Issue CCW" state, and another more recently that legalized "high capacity magazines". Unfortunately, if the case is important enough, it is referred to the full court, or a larger panel of Judges to be "re-argued" with a liberal majority. In the end, we always lose the important decisions.
Just maybe, if Trump is given 4 more years, he can restore some balance to the 9th Circus.
It is seriously going to be weird for a long time reading headlines like that for sure!
That’s ALWAYS been part of Immigration law and sponsorship
Why the HELL isn't the number ZERO? Why would let let ANY in that immediately go on the dole?
Which results in the appearance of some 3-judge panels with 2 conservative judges. Which means this isn't over. A replay before a larger panel might have a liberal majority that time, and this decision would be reversed. That depends on appellate practice strategic choices by the plaintiffs here and the 9th Circuit which can't be determined right now. Trump's appointment of so many new Circuit Court judges creates too much uncertainty to call that one.
It doesn’t look like anybody read the last sentence of the excerpt.
It would be wonderful if, before Trump leaves offie, the Supreme Court would make a ruling that a single circuit court cannot make a ruling that affects more than their own district. Today we have judge-shopping in the extreme.
President trump’s court picks are already bearing good fruit for the country. 8>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.