Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dilbert San Diego
Not really. Read what he wrote. It's complicated. He says that he understands the State's concerns about immigration, but the COVID issue is over and it is not the Court's job to set immigration policy.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a544_n758.pdf

I'm just surprised that Jackson joined him and not Kagan and Sotomayor who didn't join his opinion.

"JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins, dissenting. From March 2020 to April 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responded to the COVID–19 pandemic by issuing a series of emergency decrees. Those decrees—often called “Title 42 orders”—severely restricted immigration to this country on the ground that it posed a “serious danger” of “introduc[ing]” a “communicable disease.” 58 Stat. 704, 42 U. S. C. §265. Fast forward to a few weeks ago. A district court held that the Title 42 orders were arbitrary and capricious, vacated them, and enjoined their operation. On appeal, Arizona and certain other States moved to intervene to challenge the district court’s ruling, arguing that the federal government would not defend the Title 42 orders as vigorously as they might. The D. C. Circuit denied the States’ motion. In response, the States have now come to this Court seeking two things. First, the States ask us to grant expedited review of the D. C. Circuit’s intervention ruling. Second, the States ask us to stay the district court’s judgment while we review the D. C. Circuit’s intervention ruling. This stay would effectively require the federal government to continue enforcing the Title 42 orders indefinitely. Today, the Court obliges both requests. Respectfully, I believe these decisions unwise. Reasonable minds can disagree about the merits of the D. C. Circuit’s intervention ruling. But that case-specific decision is not of special importance in its own right and would not normally warrant expedited review. The D. C. Circuit’s intervention ruling takes on whatever salience it has only because of its presence in a larger underlying dispute about the Title 42 orders. And on that score, it is unclear what we might accomplish. Even if at the end of it all we find that the States are permitted to intervene, and even if the States manage on remand to demonstrate that the Title 42 orders were lawfully adopted, the emergency on which those orders were premised has long since lapsed. In April 2022, the federal government terminated the Title 42 orders after determining that emergency immigration restrictions were no longer necessary or appropriate to address COVID–19. 87 Fed. Reg. 19944. The States may question whether the government followed the right administrative steps before issuing this decision (an issue on which I express no view). But they do not seriously dispute that the public-health justification undergirding the Title 42 orders has lapsed. And it is hardly obvious why we should rush in to review a ruling on a motion to intervene in a case concerning emergency decrees that have outlived their shelf life. The only plausible reason for stepping in at this stage that I can discern has to do with the States’ second request. The States contend that they face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to address it. The only means left to mitigate the crisis, the States suggest, is an order from this Court directing the federal government to continue its COVID-era Title 42 policies as long as possible—at the very least during the pendency of our review. Today, the Court supplies just such an order. For my part, I do not discount the States’ concerns. Even the federal government acknowledges “that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely have disruptive consequences.” Brief in Opposition for Federal Respondents 6. But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.

70 posted on 12/27/2022 3:29:00 PM PST by Rob_Henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Rob_Henry

Gorsuch is RIGHT in this ruling, WE ALL either want freedom from Covid regulations OR WE DON’T, we can’t have it both ways!! Our immigration LAWS on the books are being broken WHY are these AG’s NOT going to the court with the braking of the laws we have, instead of some medical statute?.


74 posted on 12/27/2022 3:43:11 PM PST by Trump Girl Kit Cat (Yosemite Sam raising hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: Rob_Henry

Yes, he had valid reasons.

I still say the “emergency” is not really over, as they’re still lecturing us on TV and such about getting boosters and how dangerous it is (bunk). AND if gov says it’s over, then go after the damn coward medical industry - they’re still forcing us into masks and vaccine requirements for XYZ. They will not let go.

But Gorsuch has a good reason to resist this.

As it is, I say, if we let aliens run in all during this scamdemic, then it is NOT that serious.

But the other poster is right that aliens should be turned back based on ILLEGAL-ALIEN LAW!


105 posted on 12/28/2022 12:18:00 PM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson