Posted on 03/04/2026 9:07:57 AM PST by CFW
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled unanimously that immigration courts must defer to executive agencies on key findings of fact during certain immigration proceedings, handing a modest, procedural win to the Trump administration.
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, writing for the entire court, said "[w]e granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate standard of review under the INA. We conclude that the statute requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitution persecution. According, we affirm."
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
English version?
Modest win ?
Federal courts can’t overrule immigration judges when it comes to the determination as to whether or not the deportee will face persecution.
Who appoints Immigration Judges ?
Ya this seemed like a big win to me. Of course, rogue liberal judges will just ignore it as they usually do with the law they don’t like
Immigration judges are appointed by the U.S. Attorney General.
The AG of the USA.
Why bother having a court?
Dems are doing all they can to garner votes no matter what it does to the American Taxpayer but Trump is always ahead of them. Mr. President keep up the good work..
——————
I think applying the law against illegal aliens (facts) does not constitute persecution.
Because the president (you know they guy who is actually elected) decides whether a country qualifies as a place of persecution and requires political asylum.
The judge only hears the plea and decides if it fits those established parameters.
The “why” is judges do not get to set foreign policy; our elected Executive does and that is how it should work. Judges do not represent the will of the people; the Executive branch does.
Sounds pretty major to me!
As an Administrative Law professor once said, “Everyone is entitled to due process. The question is what process is due.”
Exactly, remember though “due process” is the process, not establishing policy, which is what those judges were trying to do case by case.
.
Kuhdeesha Jackson brown wrote it? Does she know where the ‘period’ goes?
She doesn’t even know who can have a period.
😄
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.