The Supreme Court today said that it would review a pair of legal disputes over some Trump Administration immigration directives, including the use of military funds to build a border barrier along the US-Mexico border and a policy requiring asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases went through immigration courts.
In both cases, the Administration sought Supreme Court review after federal courts rebuffed the president's bids to curb uncontrolled mass migration into the U.S. through the southern border.
The Hill reported:
One case involves Trump’s appeal of a June ruling by a federal appeals court in California that his administration’s use of Pentagon funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is illegal.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Trump’s diversion of defense, military and other funding — billions of dollars that were not originally earmarked for border wall construction — violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the exclusive power of the purse.
The second case the justices agreed on Monday to review concerns a Trump administration approach to asylum-seekers. The policy, known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), aims to curb entry into the U.S. by requiring asylum-seekers, many of whom are Central American migrants, to remain in Mexico while their cases are heard in U.S. courts.
Lower federal courts in California ruled that the policy violates U.S. immigration law and contravenes international human rights norms and ordered the administration to curtail its application.
The Supreme Court in March allowed the Trump administration to continue enforcing its policy while it appealed the lower court ruling.
For the full story, please visit The Hill.
