Posted on 12/17/2022 6:32:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind
With a serious of debilitating crisis affecting our country under the control of a man who rarely knows where he is, what he’s doing, and perpetually misspeaks; the highest court in the nation is intervening to defend our Constitution and ultimately the American people.
In a recent round of crucial decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has just delivered a new ruling that we need now more than ever. This one comes in the wake of an u unprecedented crisis our country is witnessing at the border, with millions pouring into the country unchecked and unaccounted for. The delivery of this decision couldn’t be more crucial as the mass border infiltration is about to go from bad to much worse with Title 42′ set to end on December 21, 2022.
As reported by VOA, Title 42 is “a pandemic-era restriction that blocked migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. — the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently outlined steps it will take at the U.S.-Mexico border if the order is lifted.”
“A federal judge in Washington ordered enforcement of Title 42 to end on December 21. Republican-led states filed an appeal asking the court to keep it in place. The Biden administration also has challenged parts of the ruling ending the Trump-era asylum restrictions.”
With just a few short days before that’s set to end, the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that illegal aliens detained for six months do not have the legal right to a bond hearing for release.
“The decision addressed two separate cases involving three illegal aliens, two of which were Mexican nationals that entered the U.S. illegally after being previously deported. After they were detained, they filed a putative class action for a bond hearing after six months of detention. The third illegal alien was from El Salvador and also reentered the country illegally after being previously deported. He also sued in Washington federal court for a bond hearing. The case was brought to the high court under the Trump administration and was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue the previous administration’s fight,”
In an 8-1 ruling that brought together the conservative and liberal wings of the court, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the law is silent on the point, Conservative Brief reported.
“Respondents sought withholding of removal under the INA based on their fear that, if returned to their countries of origin, they would face persecution or torture,” Sotomayer stated in her opinion.
After the Trump administration brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was inherited by the Biden administration, which continued to pursue what the previous administration had initiated.
A number of people criticized Biden’s decision, with the American Civil Liberties Union claiming the administration was “decidedly on the wrong side of this fight.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion in which the court held that the statute prohibits class-wide injunctive relief against a corporation, but left open the possibility of injunctive relief being granted to multiple named plaintiffs in the same case.
Alito wrote, “It generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.”
In a separate case, the Supreme Court “agreed to hear a bid by President Joe Biden’s administration to revive a federal law that makes it a criminal offense to encourage illegal immigration after it was struck down by a lower court as a violation of free speech rights.”
“The justices took up the administration’s appeal of a February ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the law for infringing on rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The 9th Circuit’s ruling threw out part of the conviction of a California man, Helaman Hansen, who had been prosecuted under the law,” NBC News reported.
The federal government accused Hansen of deceiving undocumented immigrants between 2012 and 2016 by promising them that they could gain U.S. citizenship through an “adult adoption” program operated by his Sacramento-based business, Americans Helping America Chamber of Commerce.
The government said Hansen persuaded at least 471 people to join his program, charging them each up to $10,000 even though he “knew that the adult adoptions that he touted would not lead to U.S. citizenship.”
Hansen was convicted in 2017 of violating provisions of the federal law that bars inducing or encouraging noncitizens “to come to, enter, or reside” in the United States illegally, as well as mail fraud and wire fraud and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit in February ruled that the encouragement law is unconstitutional because it is overly broad and criminalizes even commonplace speech that is protected by the First Amendment, such as telling undocumented immigrants, “I encourage you to reside in the United States,” or advising them about available social services.
Biden’s administration called on the nation’s highest court to take on the case, arguing that the appeals court was wrong to invalidate an “important tool for combating activities that exacerbate unlawful immigration.”
What the name of the case? I can’t find it anywhere.
Read all of that and still have no real idea what the decision was about.
Basically, Xiden just got his butt kicked.by the court.
G
Someone translate this legal garbage into English.
VERY poorly written article. I kept reading to find out what the 8-1 ruling applied to. I am still at a loss. Can’t find more info.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a bid by President Joe Biden’s administration to revive a federal law that makes it a criminal offense to encourage illegal immigration after it was struck down by a lower court as a violation of free speech rights.
The justices took up the administration’s appeal of a February ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the law for infringing on rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling threw out part of the conviction of a California man, Helaman Hansen, who had been prosecuted under the law.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Hansen's appeal. Nothing about an 8-1 decision or opinion by the Wise Latina.
And to think Cameltoe is the Border Czar, what a pair!
Hard to parse this one but it actually sounds like it was the 9th Circuit that got its wrist slapped, not the Biden administration. Biden and Trump admins both wanted Title 42 to stay in place although for different reasons I’m guessing. Title 42 used Covid as a reason to restrict certain types of immigration. My guess is Biden’s people liked the idea of being able to control people’s movement due to a “health crisis.”
The government said Hansen persuaded at least 471 people to join his program, charging them each up to $10,000 even though he “knew that the adult adoptions that he touted would not lead to U.S. citizenship.”
Hansen was convicted in 2017 of violating provisions of the federal law that bars inducing or encouraging noncitizens “to come to, enter, or reside” in the United States illegally, as well as mail fraud and wire fraud and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit in February ruled that the encouragement law is unconstitutional because it is overly broad and criminalizes even commonplace speech that is protected by the First Amendment, such as telling undocumented immigrants, “I encourage you to reside in the United States,” or advising them about available social services.
Biden’s administration called on the nation’s highest court to take on the case, arguing that the appeals court was wrong to invalidate an “important tool for combating activities that exacerbate unlawful immigration.”
Sounds to me that the Biden Administration got exactly the riling that they wanted. So, why would it be a blow to Biden?
Title-42 allowed CBP to immediately expel people seeking asylum. Title-42 basically shut down asylum seekers due to the health emergency of Covid-19. They had to file for asylum, and asylum be adjudicated, before they could enter the U.S. at all.
Exactly. Insanely BAD article. What the hell??
He’ll just ignore it.
Was this case decided in June 2022 of last term? https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-rejects-bail-hearings-detained-immigrants-2022-06-13/
I can’t find an opinion from the Supreme Court that overturns the federal appeals court’s decision. As far as I can tell Title 42 has been ruled against, the federal government has no responsibility in enforcing the rule of law on immigration, and those that are gathering at the border will be free to come across in droves, the same way those before them have crossed. This outcome is just a green-light for them to continue as they have been doing, and just as Biden’s handlers wish.
I wonder how many judges have been paid off, threatened, blackmailed, etc. I suspect many judges are confirmed based totally on how much the deep state has on them and how much they can be manipulated to do as the democrat communists dictate.
That’s an old decision based on a different case (same issues).
The current status is here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-rejects-gop-states-request-to-delay-end-of-title-42-border-expulsions/
“’We will appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday,” outgoing Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said in a statement to CBS News Saturday.’”
Hopefully, SCOTUS will hear the case but also immediately issue an order staying the lower court’s ruling until the case can be heard. Thus, allowing Title 42 to remain in place.
The name of the 9th district case was United States v. Helaman Hansen, if that helps.
There’s been a rash of abysmal reporting the past few days and this might be the worst of the worst. What a worthless article.
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.